The Exodus
kathy...@my-deja.com
Yet again, it re-inforced my view that we are "The Whingeing Nation".
After more than a decade of economic growth surpassing even that of the
"economic miracle" - the United States, Australians are still the
"battlers' nation", governed by the politics of envy and hatred of
success.
A friend told me of a TV program (I don't even own one of those damn
things - that is, TV!) dealing with the record numbers of successful
Australians leaving the country for overseas.
Their reason? Apparently, they are, by and large, sick of being
penalized for their success...so they are off, exporting their talents
to other countries, who will appreciate them more...
Having listened to Ziggy Switkowski (Telstra boss) lamenting about how
he loses his top talents to, predominantly, the US, because he cannot
match the pay on offer, I sympathised.
Having read about the top 10% of Australians coughing up 70% of tax
collected in this country,I sympathised. After all, having contributed
over $100K in the last 12 months to the ATO's coffers, I am now leaving,
too...
I think this country (in many ways still the LUCKY one) has some major
problems. Above anything, THE major problem is the cultivated dislike
the "battlers" feel for those more enterprising (read: more successful)
Australians. The fact that more and more people forget how well off they
are (compared to the majority of the world's population) and keep
prattling on about "inequality", "relative poverty levels" the
"end-of-the-world-is-coming GST" etc.
Don't get me wrong: I am Australian, first and foremost, and I will
defend this country as much as I can. But I do think that the kind of
bleeding-heart, Che Guava-type "it's all a tory conspiracy" thinking is
driving this place under.
I, for one, am sick of paying through the nose for the socialist pipe
dream.
Until this place wakes up, farewell!
Kathy
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
PhilM
sweat of other people. Godd riddance
Phil
:Having read about the top 10% of Australians coughing up 70% of tax
:collected in this country,I sympathised. After all, having contributed
:over $100K in the last 12 months to the ATO's coffers, I am now leaving,
:too...
:Until this place wakes up, farewell!
:Kathy
:
Che Guava
kathy...@my-deja.com wrote:
> I have had a quick read through aus.politics - after quite a long break.
I am sorry you took it so hard, I did offer to remain friends..
But I have told you, no.. I'm not leaving her.
She is warm, loving, funny, clever, beautiful, witty, compassionate, charming,
kind to small animals and children, and fabulous in bed... all the things you
are not.
It is better if you ..just ...go.
> Yet again, it re-inforced my view that we are "The Whingeing Nation".
Why can't you upper crust take your kerosene bath with a stiff upper lip? B^p
> After more than a decade of economic growth surpassing even that of the
> "economic miracle" - the United States, Australians are still the
> "battlers' nation", governed by the politics of envy and hatred of
> success.
Howard just can't take the Australian people with him.. we need a leader.
"Where there is no vision, the people perish." - Proverbs 29:18
You are right, the tory politics of division have ensured ALL the
pain of structural unemployment, and the borderline poverty of a
casualised workforce has been borne by the new underclass.
While the rentiers have enjoyed a stockmarket boom based on
the cost cutting from their redundancies.
It could have been so different.
Even one of the tories traditional constituencies, the bush, feels
abandoned by the relentless and community destroying pressure
of Worlds Cheapest Practice.
And still there are cretins who think an indicator as Gross as Domestic
Product is any kind of indicator of human happiness! B^D
> A friend told me of a TV program (I don't even own one of those damn
> things -
A friend?.. no, most of us don't even try to do so! B^D
> that is, TV!)
Oh, and that's OUR fault!? ;-)
Bloody tory whingers, ALWAYS CRYING POOR! B^p
You can't beat a tory for envying the victims!
> dealing with the record numbers of successful
> Australians leaving the country for overseas.
Are you planning a new tory immigration plan?
Not only is ENTERING the country to be restricted..
but now you want controls on egress?
> Their reason? Apparently, they are, by and large, sick of being
> penalized for their success...so they are off, exporting their talents
> to other countries, who will appreciate them more...
Yeah, we saw the AMP chairman huff off with $13million... poor bastard!
poor widdle tory emigres.... 8..(
> Having listened to Ziggy Switkowski (Telstra boss) lamenting about how
> he loses his top talents to, predominantly, the US,
This is the same Ziggy who announced billion dollar profits and
thousands of jobs to be slashed?
The equation seems clear, TELSTRA dividends require more
job losses.. who could possibly complain about that?
Certainly not the poor suckers who believed Howard say
rural services won't decline further! B^p
> because he cannot
> match the pay on offer, I sympathised.
Oh, we all did! B^D
We lay awake at nights wondering how fellow Australians could
POSSIBLY consider leaving this workers paradise, just for another
$100k or two! Where is the loyalty!?
> Having read about the top 10% of Australians coughing up 70% of tax
> collected in this country,I sympathised. After all, having contributed
> over $100K in the last 12 months to the ATO's coffers, I am now leaving,
> too...
Say hello to what's-his-name from the AMP!
> I think this country (in many ways still the LUCKY one) has some major
> problems.
After so many years of tory government we can only agree. ;-)
(But careful.. that sounded just a teensy bit ..LIKE A WHINGE! B^D )
> Above anything, THE major problem is the cultivated dislike
> the "battlers" feel for those more enterprising (read: more successful)
> Australians.
Oh and just HOW is this feeling manifested as THE major problem?
As distinct from say environmental degradation, or care of the
elderly?
Is the cultivated derision the government and it's minions
heap on working people and those unfortunate enough to
be unemployed, exemplary in your view?
I never knew the plutocrats were such sensitive little souls...
you could start a new fashion trend.. the whinging wealthy! B^D
> The fact that more and more people forget how well off they
> are (compared to the majority of the world's population) and keep
> prattling on about "inequality", "relative poverty levels" the
> "end-of-the-world-is-coming GST" etc.
People such as you?
So disgusted with material remuneration so large you pay $100K in tax
that you have to look for a better place to live! B^p
.... I sympathise...
A word in your shell-like....
Just shut the door as you fuck off! ;-)
> Don't get me wrong: I am Australian, first and foremost,
After the paycheck that is.. and it just isn't enough!
You are just not appreciated here.. you earn five times the
national average but greed just can't be satiated...
YOU NEED MORE!
Why can't the workers shoulder even more taxes so you can have it?
Or take a pay cut and work longer hours so your shares double!
Let's ask them... I'm sure they will agree.... anything to keep you here!
> and I will defend this country as much as I can.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Except in any meaningful way, such as serving in the armed forces,
or paying taxes so others can. B^p
So long, in fact, as it doesn't require actually staying here
AND MAKING ANY KIND OF A CONTRIBUTION!
> But I do think that the kind of bleeding-heart, Che Guava-type
Wow, *I'M* what's wrong with Australia!
Not the Government!
Not the owners of media, industry and resources!
ME... what a fabulous political genius you are..
Please don't go... we need you to shoot more messengers!
When all the messengers are dead THERE CAN BE ONLY GOOD NEWS!
Oh, Pippy! Then everything will be wonderful!
> "it's all a tory conspiracy" thinking is driving this place under.
I never knew my critique had reached national proportions! B^D
(Or have you just lost all of yours? B^D )
To think, I have achieved all this, turned the people against their
true rulers, caused the help to revolt and defy their masters,
sans TV station, sans newspaper, sans political party, sans even
supporters on this NG... against the most sustained character
assassination, certainly of the last two years (leaving aside the
general condemnation reserved for bone fide lunatics like
Mosley, Paddy and SSchleppo! ;-)
Imagine what I could achieve with a following! B^D
Thanks for the NG training ground guys! ;-)
I am now ready to abandon this virtual cresols and
emerge in the real world as the fully formed successor
to the spirit of alienation and resentment which Hanson
failed to properly harness.
I think Damien sounds like a good nom-de-parliament, don't you? B^D
> I, for one, am sick of paying through the nose for the
> socialist pipe dream.
I have warned many times about the dangers of cocaine use
amongst you hedonist tory ruling elite...
Nose bouquets, or opium pipes, I will cleanse the national
stage of you weak and corrupt drug addicts!
I will grant your wish, you will be amongst the first liquidated. 8^o
> Until this place wakes up, farewell!
Does ANYONE have as many tory notches on their gun as I do?!? B^D
I AM THE GREATEST! B^D
> Kathy
I knew her when she was a tory princess, posting interminably
about the disgusting welfare recipients, the working poor,
the single parents, the students, elderly and blacks who were
holding her back from further promotion. B^p
Before she became such a bitter and twisted loser,
blaming others for her own failure.
Why are these tories so brittle? Lose an account and they
think their world has ended... they lack the stamina of working people.
What will she have to say once she has found others to blame
for her failure there, and returns?
Daniel Meijer
> You are right, the tory politics of division have ensured ALL the
> pain of structural unemployment, and the borderline poverty of a
> casualised workforce has been borne by the new underclass.
Yeah, those bastard Tories, bringing unemployment to a lower level than it
ever was under Labor.
--
||||||||
| ^ ^ |
(| * * |)
-----------oOOo---(__)---oOOo----------
Daniel Meijer - Sydney, Australia.
d...@zip.com.au
http://www.zip.com.au/~dm/
----------------------------------------
John Leister
pay his top people what they would get in the USA?
Telstra just announced a 2 billion, that's right billion
dollar obscene profit so Ziggy could afford to pay
his so called "top people".......
And they sacked 10,000 today too....
stereotype
>Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> You are right, the tory politics of division have ensured ALL the
>> pain of structural unemployment, and the borderline poverty of a
>> casualised workforce has been borne by the new underclass.
>
>Yeah, those bastard Tories, bringing unemployment to a lower level than it
>ever was under Labor.
Do you have any idea how many are unemployed?
Do you have any idea how many are part time?
Any idea how many hours those people work a week?
Any idea what their average income is?
didn't think so.
Perhaps a more accurate figure, rather than the amount unemployed,
would be the amount (%) in full time work. It would be a more accurate
indication of the health of the economy. An even better stat would be
the median income. Not the average income, the MEDIAN. The avergae is
always skewed. The median would tell us how well off this country
really is, and how well off those in the top 10% income bracket
actually are.
Until we get those figures we will never know the truth about
unemployment/part time/fulltime/income distribution in this country.
Labor didn't give them to us, nor have the tories. They don't want us
to know the truth.
stereotype
-----------
When the white man came we had the land and they had the Bible. They
taught us to pray with our eyes closed and when we opened them, they
had the land and we had the Bible.
Jomo Kenyatta
Granbob
RIDDANCE!
>
>
------------------------------------------------------
When injustice becomes law - Resistance becomes duty
------------------------------------------------------
Aldis Ozols
Gee Kathy, how is this place ever going to
wake up if you don't wake it?
--
How to Lobby Politicians
http://www.zeta.org.au/~aldis/lobby.html
"Reality is whatever doesn't go away when you stop believing in it."
-- Philip K Dick
kathy...@my-deja.com
times slightly confused individual (no offense, please!)
Telstra currently is in the worst-of-all-worlds situation. It's
partially government owned and as such it is expected to, besides making
money, also double as Social Security for all sorts of people.
While many will complain about job losses etc., it's a fact that Telstra
now competes in the open market. It has lost a sizeable chunk of its
initial 100% (monopoly) market share. Its share price has reflected this
- it has been the worst performing out of all the major telcos over the
last year.
Those "obscene" profits, as you have put it, will not last forever. And
those, who are screaming the loudest at present, will be tho first ones
to switch to other providers when it comes to their hip pocket.
That is why Ziggy is doing what he's doing. I'm sure he's not doing it
because he enjoys sacking people.
Kath
kathy...@my-deja.com
Aldis Ozols <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
> kathy...@my-deja.com wrote:
> >
> > Until this place wakes up, farewell!
>
> Gee Kathy, how is this place ever going to
> wake up if you don't wake it?
>
revolutionary, or a political visionary.
I have done my bit to get above the "battler" status. For that, and for
giving more back in 10 years of employment than many will in their
lifetimes, I am, as you can see, being told by some to "fuck off" and
"good riddance".
These people are the best proof of what I had to say.
Keep up the good work, Aldis!
kathy...@my-deja.com
Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
...cut a whole lot of woffle...
Not much point in bothering to debate you on this, Che! This was one of
your famous "full of shit - nothing to say - twist-the-facts-a-little"
posts...
Never mind; I am sure you have, in your lifetime, created plenty of jobs
for your fellow Australians, you have contributed tens of thousands in
taxes, to help create a better society, you have done your military duty
(in Vietnam, was it?) and these days you donate all your income to noble
causes...
Is that so?
If not, why not?
You - the GREATEST (in your own words!) the Visinary, the Defender Of
The Poor!
Just cry on, my dear - I'm sure that after most of the enterprising,
job-creating, tax-paying Australians have "fucked off", you will have
your paradise.
Maybe you can then rename the place - to UASR (Union of Australian
Socialist Republics) {;-)
Good luck, my friend...
Kathy
David Wareing
kathy...@my-deja.com wrote on 9/3/00 17:24:
> In article <38C680A8...@senet.com.au>,
> John Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote:
>> Ummmm kathy kiddo...... Howcome Ziggy can't
>> pay his top people what they would get in the USA?
>>
>> Telstra just announced a 2 billion, that's right billion
>> dollar obscene profit so Ziggy could afford to pay
>> his so called "top people".......
A 2 billion dollar profit is obscene?!?!? If you
say so, Comrade. What would you prefer, a 2 billion
dollar loss???
Do you actually understand what business is John?
>> And they sacked 10,000 today too....
Did they? Are you sure about that or are you just
guessing?
Last I heard, at least 3000 of those positions will
be lost through attrition - the jobs simply won't
be filled when people resign from them.
Che Guava
kathy...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38C680A8...@senet.com.au>,
> John Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote:
> > Ummmm kathy kiddo...... Howcome Ziggy can't
> > pay his top people what they would get in the USA?
> >
> > Telstra just announced a 2 billion, that's right billion
> > dollar obscene profit so Ziggy could afford to pay
> > his so called "top people".......
> >
> > And they sacked 10,000 today too....
> >
> You know, John, you've always impressed me as well-meaning, albeit at
> times slightly confused individual (no offense, please!)
And you have always struck me as a brittle prima donna.
willing to slag people, but if challenged, playing dead.
> Telstra currently is in the worst-of-all-worlds situation. It's
> partially government owned and as such it is expected to, besides making
> money, also double as Social Security for all sorts of people.
> While many will complain about job losses etc., it's a fact that Telstra
> now competes in the open market. It has lost a sizeable chunk of its
> initial 100% (monopoly) market share. Its share price has reflected this
> - it has been the worst performing out of all the major telcos over the
> last year.
All of which means it is restrained in the speed at which it can shed jobs,
and abrogate service objectives, to rural and other customers!
It still faces some political pressure as it shapes up to EXPORT thousands of
call centre jobs overseas, impoverishing australian workers to enrich
its shareholders.
The wonderful benefits of privatization! TOTALLY CONCENTRATED!
> Those "obscene" profits, as you have put it, will not last forever.
Sure, a once great organization, with engineering depth, will see
business activities hived off, further enriching shareholders, and
will evolve toward the sort of power companies we now have,
in foreign hands, not giving a stuff for this community, willing
to hold the nation to ransom to enrich its shareholders.
> And those, who are screaming the loudest at present, will be tho first ones
> to switch to other providers when it comes to their hip pocket.
Put your finger right on the driving force.. Worlds Cheapest Practice!
A sure fired, ironclad guarantee to see the jobs go overseas and the dividends
concentrated in the hands of the rentier elite.
> That is why Ziggy is doing what he's doing.
Sure.. HE will make a packet!
> I'm sure he's not doing it because he enjoys sacking people.
Of course not, there is an inexorable logic to fuck workers to
achieve higher returns to shareholders... short term profit
maximization that leads to WHOLE COMMUNITIES DESTROYED,
AS IN THE LATROBE VALLEY!
Thousands of people's lives and businesses ravaged by the reverse
multiplier effect.
EVERY TOWN WITH A TELSTRA CALL CENTRE CAN
EXPECT TO SEE THE BUSINESSES WHICH DEPEND ON
THOSE PAYCHECKS FAIL, AS THE JOBS GO TO INDIA!
Why? because its cheaper, a little for the customers, (but their children
then CAN'T FIND JOBS, a classic false economy),
and mostly in returns to SHAREHOLDERS.
The tendency of corporate capitalism in the globalised market is to
greater and greater concentration of wealth, a growing underclass,
and the disappearance of the middle class.
John Leister
The figure of 10,000 was lifted from afternoon radio
on the day I posted my reply to Kathy
ralph
Another "core value" that is ...
We have already seen him destroy honesty, courtesy, and (if they were
ever included) equality and fair play... and now ...
On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 23:35:51 +1100, Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com>
wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>Does ANYONE have as many tory notches on their gun as I do?!? B^D
>
>I AM THE GREATEST! B^D
>
I guess this means "humility" and "modesty" are out too ;-)
Tell us again about those core values - 'cause I'm thinking you've
just about run out ;-P
P.S. What's with all the self-scoring? Seems to me about as valid as
letting kiddies mark their own school exams ;-)
Che Guava
kathy...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38C64927...@my-deja.com>,
> Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> ...cut a whole lot of woffle...
I noted your stream of consciousness, tory bitching was gone,
but so was my pointed parody! B^p
> Not much point in bothering to debate you on this, Che!
You always were a hit and run quitter.
Shovel a little bile, and then denounce the riposte as being :
> This was one of
> your famous "full of shit - nothing to say - twist-the-facts-a-little"
> posts...
Oh, nothing like your pathetic tory bleating about the trials
of the Ayn Rand Fountainhead?
Relieved only by gratuitous insults to the whole Australian
nation who failed to meet your pecuniary standards! B^D
You simply lack self analysis.
Next, we ignore EVERY counter point raised, and establish
some self-serving criteria for the right to speak! B^D
I haven't seen anything quite so reactionary since the universal franchise
was rejected during the Putney debates in 1647, when people you would
have felt right at home amongst argued ONLY MEN OF SUBSTANCE
(LANDHOLDERS) SHOULD HAVE THER VOTE!
Like you they were anti-democratic, class riddled ideologues, who could
not stand the idea of EVERYONE being ENTITLED to RIGHTS!
So what are the tory conditions for FULL CITIZENSHIP privileges:
> Never mind; I am sure you have, in your lifetime, created plenty of jobs
> for your fellow Australians, you have contributed tens of thousands in
> taxes, to help create a better society, you have done your military duty
> (in Vietnam, was it?) and these days you donate all your income to noble
> causes...
> Is that so?
Two of these more than Jesus, one less than Hitler.
But you have no right to ask. It demonstrates the shallow price-tag
you place on ideas.
> If not, why not?
It is self serving for plutocrats to claim that rights are based on
property ownership, or income.
But at least you are honest in your rejection of democracy,
and support for a dollar meritocracy.
Personally I despise it, and even where I can meet your criteria,
refuse to do so, it is an insult to those who cannot.
You would reject Galileao and Newton in favour of Skase and Bond
You really are a moral cripple!
> You - the GREATEST (in your own words!) the
> Visinary, the Defender Of
> The Poor! Just cry on, my dear -
You are the WORST of whiners.... B^p
lacking in wit OR wisdom...
savage but purposeless..
empty of any redeeming merit.
TOTALLY SELF SERVING!
Criticising the efforts of others even as you abandon the field of struggle!
RANK HYPOCRITE, TRUE TORY QUEEN! B^D
> I'm sure that after most of the enterprising,
> job-creating, tax-paying Australians have "fucked off",
Are they all planning to take a $13 million package?
Sorry, we would have been FAR BETTER OFF with
a million $13 packages, every one buying milk and bread!
Thousands of multiplier effects!
Your BIG BANG is BULLSHIT, instead of thousands of
small multipliers we get a BMW, and a multi-million
dollar home.. IN CALIFORNIA! B^p
totally fucked economics!
> you will have your paradise.
You are the simple minded cretin who talks in such lunatic platitudes..
go and bleat at some other poor buggers for a while! B^D
> Maybe you can then rename the place - to UASR (Union of Australian
> Socialist Republics) {;-)
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This from a woman whose philosophy is clearly imbedded in
17th century ideas of noblesse oblige! B^D
You are a laughable little jumped up petty bourgeoisie...
remember me in thirty years when the realization of what a pup
you have been sold, finally dawns....
remember... i know the world of your working class background
which you now despise, and the one of the corporate dream world
which now holds you captive... both are to be transcended.
> Good luck, my friend...
I wish you every financial success you desire....
decades of proud achievement...
sweeping triumph in shaping the world to your will....
And then to be broken on the rack of love and cracked open
by tears of remembered joy....
Che
-----
Unmarked Boxes
Don't grieve.
Anything you lose comes around in another form.
The child weaned from mothers' milk now drinks wine and honey mixed.
Gods' joy moves from unmarked box to unmarked box,
from cell to cell.
As rainwater, down into flower bed
As roses, up from the ground.
Now it looks like a plate of rice and fish,
now a cliff with vines,
now a horse being saddled.
It hides within these,
till one day it cracks them open.
- Jalalal'u'din Rumi
Seer.
Che Guava
At least you saved me the effort of coming up with an appropriate subject
header this time! B^D
> Another "core value" that is ...
It appears you identify "core values" by placing your head up your
fundament and taking your own temperature.
> We have already seen him destroy honesty, courtesy, and (if they were
> ever included) equality and fair play... and now ...
hubris, cant, lying, plutocratic pomposity, bombast and boorishness...
> On Wed, 08 Mar 2000 23:35:51 +1100, Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
Lets remember the context too.. the tory princess, bailing
because she can't get the full stock options she was negotiating..
has castigated all her (remaining) countrymen for their lack
of entrepreneurial stamina! In passing, apropos of nothing but
a bile reflux, she tips a gratuitous bucket, and blames me for the
collapse of Western civilization.. I respond in kind..
lights... action:
> >
> >Does ANYONE have as many tory notches on their gun as I do?!? B^D
> >
> >I AM THE GREATEST! B^D
> >
>
> I guess this means "humility" and "modesty" are out too ;-)
I am, without a doubt, one of the most incredibly humble humans you
will ever meet, and my modesty is unsurpassed. ;-)
(Is there a competition in bumptious self-righteousness you are entered in
with a large purse which you seek to win ? I can't recall the last time
someone
delivered such pompous pontifications, totally devoid of redeeming wit or
humour,
at a clear, gloating, throw-away! B^D Were you the sort of kid who plucked
butterfly wings to impress the girls with your manly seriousness? ;-)
> Tell us again about those core values - 'cause I'm thinking you've
> just about run out ;-P
You have me confused with some pasty faced, namby pamby,
turn-the-other-cheek Christians! B^D
I belong to the great tradition of two fisted saints! B^P
Wine, women and poetry are the ecstatic ladders for the soul!
Those that seek to pervert the innocent will be crushed.. not forgiven!
You have been misled by recent centuries of weak and decadent
religious milksops, into forgetting what it takes to face lions.
These days the lions are *systems* of great wealth and power.
but they ravage and consume weak flesh just as the beasts of old.
> P.S. What's with all the self-scoring?
I don't know, everytime you see someone else doing it,
you call them 'ME' B^D
I mean, really! .. what sort of weak shite is this:
Ralph wrote:
> soupnazi wrote:
>
>> soupnazi 1 - rowlf 0
>
> scoring yourself? lol
>
> another Che trick
>
> you sure you aren't him?
BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Find me NOT doing something,
find someone else doing it..
CALL THEM ME! B^p
and then bitch about what *I* do!!!!!!! B^D B^D
I think you have become nuerotically fixated, find someone else for
your jealous hatred for a while! B^D
> Seems to me about as valid as letting kiddies mark their own school exams ;-)
Sure but that's all you have got, I suppose! B^D
doug
Siegen
:> I have had a quick read through aus.politics - after quite a long break.
:> Yet again, it re-inforced my view that we are "The Whingeing Nation".
With plenty to "whinge" about.
:> After more than a decade of economic growth surpassing even that of the
:> "economic miracle" - the United States, Australians are still the
:> "battlers' nation", governed by the politics of envy and hatred of
:> success.
What you say is "growth" turns out to the growth in the length of the
dole-que.
:> A friend told me of a TV program (I don't even own one of those damn
:> things - that is, TV!) dealing with the record numbers of successful
:> Australians leaving the country for overseas.
This could have been 20 leaving last year as opposed to only 11 the
year before.
:> Their reason? Apparently, they are, by and large, sick of being
:> penalized for their success
:> ...so they are off, exporting their talents
:> to other countries, who will appreciate them more...
Sounds to me like THEY are the whingers.
:> Having listened to Ziggy Switkowski (Telstra boss) lamenting about how
:> he loses his top talents to, predominantly, the US, because he cannot
:> match the pay on offer, I sympathised.
This would be Ziggy, the fuckwit, Switkowski of "I am going to sack
10,000 more employees because we made only 2.1 BILLION dollars profit
last year" fame. (When do you figure he may twig to why he "loses his
top talent"??
Why are so many people, with brains the size of peanuts, given such
prominent positions?
:> Having read about the top 10% of Australians coughing up 70% of tax
:> collected in this country,I sympathised. After all, having contributed
:> over $100K in the last 12 months to the ATO's coffers, I am now leaving,
:> too...
Another whinger hits the trail.
Australia's collective I.Q. rises again.
:> I think this country (in many ways still the LUCKY one) has some major
:> problems. Above anything, THE major problem is the cultivated dislike
:> the "battlers" feel for those more enterprising (read: more successful)
:> Australians.
Such as Mr. Bond?
:> The fact that more and more people forget how well off they
:> are (compared to the majority of the world's population) and keep
:> prattling on about "inequality", "relative poverty levels" the
:> "end-of-the-world-is-coming GST" etc.
When we too can earn ONE MILLION DOLLARS PER DAY whilst languishing in
a minimum security prison teaching "business principles" to other
crooks then we might lighten up on these people, but not before.
:> Don't get me wrong: I am Australian, first and foremost, and I will
:> defend this country as much as I can.
... "I just don't want to contribute". <--- you forgot to add.
:> But I do think that the kind of bleeding-heart, Che Guava-type "it's all a
:> tory conspiracy" thinking is driving this place under.
I really can't see just how posting messages to newsgroups is "driving
this place under".
:> I, for one, am sick of paying through the nose for the socialist pipe
:> dream.
:> Until this place wakes up, farewell!
So, you don't like living in a Society. i.e. such that we each
contribute a little towards those who aren't faring as well as we are.
Why leave then? The pollies are on your side. Welfare is becoming
increasingly oriented to serving the better-off individual and to
serving corporations. You should be rejoicing, not scurrying away like
a cockroach when the light comes on.
:> Kathy
Got a job in Mexico?
Cheers,
Siegen
:> Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
:>
:> > You are right, the tory politics of division have ensured ALL the
:> > pain of structural unemployment, and the borderline poverty of a
:> > casualised workforce has been borne by the new underclass.
:>
:> Yeah, those bastard Tories, bringing unemployment to a lower level than it
:> ever was under Labor.
This was achieved by not cunting people out of a job as being
unemployed.
Cheers,
Siegen
:> In article <38C680A8...@senet.com.au>,
:> John Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote:
:> > Ummmm kathy kiddo...... Howcome Ziggy can't
:> > pay his top people what they would get in the USA?
:> > Telstra just announced a 2 billion, that's right billion
:> > dollar obscene profit so Ziggy could afford to pay
:> > his so called "top people".......
:> > And they sacked 10,000 today too....
:> You know, John, you've always impressed me as well-meaning, albeit at
:> times slightly confused individual (no offense, please!)
You insult him for showing how ludicrous is your sympathy for poor
f.w. Ziggy and then beg John not to take offence at the insult?
:> Telstra currently is in the worst-of-all-worlds situation.
Have you had this independently verified or are you still just reading
from Ziggy's press-release?
:> It's partially government owned
It isn't "partially government owned", it is still partially owned by
the people of Australia --- including you, you fool.
:> and as such it is expected to, besides making
:> money, also double as Social Security for all sorts of people.
Well, the Shareholders are the ones whose interests the company claims
to want to serve.
:> While many will complain about job losses etc., it's a fact that Telstra
:> now competes in the open market. It has lost a sizeable chunk of its
:> initial 100% (monopoly) market share.
Normally, this is done by reducing charges so as to attract a larger
market share. Not by keeping charges high and firing employees. (Did
you go to Harvard perhaps?)
:> Its share price has reflected this - it has been the worst performing out of
:> all the major telcos over the last year.
The "little australian shareholder" is merely being stripped of
his/her investment so that big corporations can collect those shares
cheaply.
:> Those "obscene" profits, as you have put it, will not last forever. And
:> those, who are screaming the loudest at present, will be tho first ones
:> to switch to other providers when it comes to their hip pocket.
:> That is why Ziggy is doing what he's doing. I'm sure he's not doing it
:> because he enjoys sacking people.
As I already pointed out ...... normally, this is done by reducing
charges so as to attract a larger market share. Not by keeping charges
high and firing employees. (Did you go to Harvard perhaps?)
:> Kath
Anyway, I thought you were leaving.
Cheers,
Siegen
<dwar...@adelaide.on.net> wrote:
:> in article 8a7hr0$uqh$1...@nnrp1.deja.com, kathy...@my-deja.com at
:> kathy...@my-deja.com wrote on 9/3/00 17:24:
:> > In article <38C680A8...@senet.com.au>,
:> > John Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote:
:> >> Ummmm kathy kiddo...... Howcome Ziggy can't
:> >> pay his top people what they would get in the USA?
:> >> Telstra just announced a 2 billion, that's right billion
:> >> dollar obscene profit so Ziggy could afford to pay
:> >> his so called "top people".......
David:
:> A 2 billion dollar profit is obscene?!?!? If you
:> say so, Comrade.
You bet it is. It means fools, such as yourself, have been grossly
OVERCHARGED and you not only ENJOY it but also defend it!!!
I notice though that you don't seem to have a "Big-Pond" account ---
why might that be?
:> What would you prefer, a 2 billion
:> dollar loss???
Telecom/Telstra has made, throughout the 70's, 80's and 90's huge
profits (though smaller than this present one). The "climate of
increased competition" seems to have even further increased its
profits.
:> Do you actually understand what business is John?
The question here is whether you understand it.
:> >> And they sacked 10,000 today too....
:> Did they? Are you sure about that or are you just
:> guessing?
That's what was reported.
:> Last I heard, at least 3000 of those positions will
:> be lost through attrition - the jobs simply won't
:> be filled when people resign from them.
Someone (was it Alston?) did say that some of the "attrition" will be
employees aged over 50 and the fuckwit, whoever it actually was, then
claimed they can go get jobs at "ONE-TEL".
It's sad to see that you align yourself with these people in power but
who have brains the size of a peanut. (Uni educated are you?)
Cheers,
Siegen
:> In article <38C6FFCA...@zeta.org.au>,
:> Aldis Ozols <al...@zeta.org.au> wrote:
:> > kathy...@my-deja.com wrote:
:> > > Until this place wakes up, farewell!
:> > Gee Kathy, how is this place ever going to
:> > wake up if you don't wake it?
:> Unlike some people here, I do not consider myself either a
:> revolutionary, or a political visionary.
We don't consider you one either.
:> I have done my bit to get above the "battler" status.
And, as soon as you do it you turn on the remaining "battlers".
.... whinging about them being whingers.
:> For that, and for giving more back in 10 years of employment than many
:> will in their lifetimes,
You are a real life heroine Kathy. We should have a public holiday in
your honour!
:> I am, as you can see, being told by some to "fuck off" and
:> "good riddance".
Well ...... why are you still here then? Haven't you gotten the
message yet?
:> These people are the best proof of what I had to say.
"These people are the best proof" of what? What Ziggy whinged about?
:> Keep up the good work, Aldis!
:> Kath
Cheers,
Death
Daniel Meijer <d...@zipworld.com.au> wrote in message
news:8a6j5g$43o$2...@the-fly.zip.com.au...
> Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> > You are right, the tory politics of division have ensured ALL the
> > pain of structural unemployment, and the borderline poverty of a
> > casualised workforce has been borne by the new underclass.
>
> ever was under Labor.
Yeah, we should thank the tories for running down the
safe net, making employment more insecure, making
us spend more time away from family and friends
and in the office on overtime (maybe with family and
friends but not necessarily of our choosing) and basically in
times of plenty pay taxes to shoreup private health
care that if we pay more money we can actually partake
in. Yeah, we pay taxes for civil servents to run around
and give it back too us. The little parasites and then they
tell us when we work our butts off it was them that
did it. Bugger.
David Wareing
wrote on 9/3/00 18:18:
>> You know, John, you've always impressed me as well-meaning, albeit at
>> times slightly confused individual (no offense, please!)
>
> And you have always struck me as a brittle prima donna.
> willing to slag people, but if challenged, playing dead.
Bwaahahahahahahah!!!! Oh, this is brilliant! CliChe, stop
it, please - you're cracking me up.
YOU, of all people, bitching about slagging off and then
beating a retreat! YOU! What next, you'll be complaining
about people not sticking to the point or people whining?!?
[CliChes deleted]
kathy...@my-deja.com
fin...@end.of.message wrote:
...delete lots of "s/he wrote"...
>
> :> Unlike some people here, I do not consider myself either a
> :> revolutionary, or a political visionary.
> We don't consider you one either.
Thank you for your compliment!
I obviously did not notice you knew me so well...
And, BTW - which organization do you speak for? Or is it just the
assumed "we" - speaking for the downtrodden masses?
> :> I have done my bit to get above the "battler" status.
> And, as soon as you do it you turn on the remaining "battlers".
> .... whinging about them being whingers.
Is that so? I thought I merely made a comment about the Australians'
inherent hatred of success...
>> :> For that, and for giving more back in 10 years of employment than
many
> :> will in their lifetimes,
> You are a real life heroine Kathy. We should have a public holiday in
> your honour!
I don't think so...the idea of "heros of socialist labor" and public
holidays and statues in their honor is no longer in fashion.
Perhaps, instead of planning more public holidays, people like yourself
could also create jobs through their own initiative.
> :> I am, as you can see, being told by some to "fuck off" and
> :> "good riddance".
> Well ...... why are you still here then? Haven't you gotten the
> message yet?
If I were so sensitive as to take offense from some of the stallwarts of
aus.politics, I could not run a business, either!
You see, these days one need not actually BE in Australia - and one can
still post to Usenet...
> :> These people are the best proof of what I had to say.
> "These people are the best proof" of what? What Ziggy whinged about?
The best proof of the Whingeing Nation.
Nice speaking to you, Siegen! No doubt, we'll meet again!
Kath
kathy...@my-deja.com
fin...@end.of.message wrote:
...delete some "s/he wrote"...
> :> You know, John, you've always impressed me as well-meaning, albeit
at
> :> times slightly confused individual (no offense, please!)
> You insult him for showing how ludicrous is your sympathy for poor
> f.w. Ziggy and then beg John not to take offence at the insult?
I am polite enough to put my comments accross with some clarification
about what it is I'm trying to say.
What makes you think John cannot answer for himself, anyway? Are you
so condescending or you simply are you not bright enough to realize your
barging in on John's behalf is much more offensive to him than my
comment?
By the way, what makes you think Ziggy is a fuckwit? Do you think, by
any chance, that he makes decisions like the one mentioned above all on
his own?
What would you say if he presided over Telstra which were LOSING $2bn.?
Would you then consider him smart - as long as he did not sack anyone?
> :> Telstra currently is in the worst-of-all-worlds situation.
> Have you had this independently verified or are you still just reading
> from Ziggy's press-release?
I have it verified from both being a Telstra shareholder and reading
business magazines.
Which are your sources?
> :> It's partially government owned
> It isn't "partially government owned", it is still partially owned by
> the people of Australia --- including you, you fool.
And - what?
What benefit did "the people of Australia" get out of a monopolistic
organization, which was way overstaffed and overcharging was the normal
way of doing business?
> :> and as such it is expected to, besides making
> :> money, also double as Social Security for all sorts of people.
> Well, the Shareholders are the ones whose interests the company claims
> to want to serve.
As they should - that is what business is all about.
Like it or hate it - the last time business was run by government
decree, those countries practising it went broke.
> :> While many will complain about job losses etc., it's a fact that
Telstra
> :> now competes in the open market. It has lost a sizeable chunk of
its
> :> initial 100% (monopoly) market share.
> Normally, this is done by reducing charges so as to attract a larger
> market share. Not by keeping charges high and firing employees. (Did
> you go to Harvard perhaps?)
No, I did not go to Harvard. However, it is obvious you yourself did
not, either. I would volunteer a guess you had trouble finishing Year
12...
How do you reduce charges without reducing costs?
Or do you think the $2bn would suffice to reduce charges significantly,
with no further cost cutting?
> :> Its share price has reflected this - it has been the worst
performing out of
> :> all the major telcos over the last year.
> The "little australian shareholder" is merely being stripped of
> his/her investment so that big corporations can collect those shares
> cheaply.
Ah - I've got it now!
It's all a big business conspiracy! Why did you not say that earlier?
You may find this a surprise, but the major players in the stock market
are, amongst others, mutual funds. These invest money primarily on
behalf of small investors.
The conspiracy theory fails, huh?
> :> Those "obscene" profits, as you have put it, will not last forever.
And
> :> those, who are screaming the loudest at present, will be tho first
ones
> :> to switch to other providers when it comes to their hip pocket.
> :> That is why Ziggy is doing what he's doing. I'm sure he's not doing
it
> :> because he enjoys sacking people.
> As I already pointed out ...... normally, this is done by reducing
> charges so as to attract a larger market share. Not by keeping charges
> high and firing employees. (Did you go to Harvard perhaps?)
>
As I already pointed out - your knowledge of business practices seems to
leave a lot to be desired.
>
> Anyway, I thought you were leaving.
>
Why?
So you can debate someone who's an easier target?
kathy...@my-deja.com
Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
...delete "s/he wrote"...
> I noted your stream of consciousness, tory bitching was gone,
> but so was my pointed parody! B^p
Your pointed parody?
I would have described it as disconnected ravings of a lunatic...
> > Not much point in bothering to debate you on this, Che!
>
> You always were a hit and run quitter.
> Shovel a little bile, and then denounce the riposte as being :
I have?
Funny that; I remember quite a few occasions this description would have
fitted you perfectly...particularly when you were asked some unpleasant
questions - like what gave you the right to assume the high moral
ground! (But, I forget - with the Left, high moral ground is a given!)
> > This was one of
> > your famous "full of shit - nothing to say -
twist-the-facts-a-little"
>
> > posts...
>
> Oh, nothing like your pathetic tory bleating about the trials
> of the Ayn Rand Fountainhead?
What are you on about?
I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I have never even
mentioned Ayn Rand, or anything to do with that author.
> Relieved only by gratuitous insults to the whole Australian
> nation who failed to meet your pecuniary standards! B^D
"Insults" as defined by Mr FruitLoop - the Consciousness Of The
Community...
> You simply lack self analysis.
Again - funny coming from you; one who analyses everyone and everything,
but only from his peculiar viewpoint.
> Next, we ignore EVERY counter point raised, and establish
> some self-serving criteria for the right to speak! B^D
>
> I haven't seen anything quite so reactionary since the universal
> franchise
> was rejected during the Putney debates in 1647, when people you would
> have felt right at home amongst argued ONLY MEN OF SUBSTANCE
> (LANDHOLDERS) SHOULD HAVE THER VOTE!
>
> Like you they were anti-democratic, class riddled ideologues, who
could
> not stand the idea of EVERYONE being ENTITLED to RIGHTS!
More disjointed woffle...
BTW - I think you need a new keyboard. The old one tends to get stuck on
caps...
> So what are the tory conditions for FULL CITIZENSHIP privileges:
I don't know what the "tory" ones are, but if you are talking about
right-of-center politics, then ask the Department of Immigration - I'm
sure they can advise you on current government's policies on the matter.
> > Never mind; I am sure you have, in your lifetime, created plenty of
jobs
> > for your fellow Australians, you have contributed tens of thousands
in
> > taxes, to help create a better society, you have done your military
duty
> > (in Vietnam, was it?) and these days you donate all your income to
noble
> > causes...
> > Is that so?
>
> Two of these more than Jesus, one less than Hitler.
>
> But you have no right to ask. It demonstrates the shallow price-tag
> you place on ideas.
I have no right to ask, and yet YOU have the right to accuse me of
shallowness and greed; without even knowing me!
Why does your hypocricy not surprise me? Is it because it's to be
expected from the likes of yourself?
I am GREEDY, because I, instead of sitting on my arse, wallowing in
misery, hating anyone who's better off than me, chose to make some
effort and get ahead - creating jobs for others in the process. I am
GREEDY, because I wish to keep more of what I earn for my 60+hour
average working weeks, so I can choose what to do with those funds,
rather than handing them over to bureaucrats to "redistribute", wasting
over a third in the process!
You, on the other hand, having failed in a business venture yourself (as
you told me), now practise "feel-good" politics and tell me I must hand
over more of the fruits of my labor!
Who is the greedy one?
Who is the morally corrupt one?
Like it or not, we are not living in a Buddhist monastery. Your moral
"superiority" is illusory - as it is judged according to criteria you
yourself have devised.
Your reluctance to talk about your real world achievents speaks volumes
- and it does nothing for your credibility.
Even thousands of your posts to Usenet whave not changed that fact.
> > If not, why not?
>
> It is self serving for plutocrats to claim that rights are based on
> property ownership, or income.
Who said anything about "rights"?
As usual, you're full of it!
> But at least you are honest in your rejection of democracy,
> and support for a dollar meritocracy.
As usual, you're full of it!
I support betterment thru one's own endeavors - a concept totally
foreign to you and others like you.
Your woffle about "rights" "dollar meritocracy" etc. is merely a
smokescreen for your inability to answer a question that hits too close
to home!
> Personally I despise it, and even where I can meet your criteria,
> refuse to do so, it is an insult to those who cannot.
It is not an insult - the ones who genuinely cannot are few and far
between.
Most either will not, or dare not - for whatever reason.
> You would reject Galileao and Newton in favour of Skase and Bond
>
> You really are a moral cripple!
I would reject you in favor of someone more coherent - any time!
> > You - the GREATEST (in your own words!) the
>
> > Visoinary, the Defender Of
> > The Poor! Just cry on, my dear -
>
> You are the WORST of whiners.... B^p
> lacking in wit OR wisdom...
> savage but purposeless..
> empty of any redeeming merit.
>
> TOTALLY SELF SERVING!
>
> Criticising the efforts of others even as you abandon the field of
> struggle!
>
> RANK HYPOCRITE, TRUE TORY QUEEN! B^D
Resorting to offending me will not exonerate you from the predicament
you have placed yourself into.
Self-serving, self-appointed "consciousness of the nation"!
One must play by your own rules; or you resort to insults.
> > I'm sure that after most of the enterprising,
> > job-creating, tax-paying Australians have "fucked off",
>
> Are they all planning to take a $13 million package?
One sparrow does spring make, you know...
Idiot remarks of this kind do not deserve serious comment.
> Sorry, we would have been FAR BETTER OFF with
> a million $13 packages, every one buying milk and bread!
And what?
Besides the fact that this constant pet story of yours
has been comprehensively demolished by Geoff,amongst others, in the
past, what does that have to do with talented, generally young,
Australians leaving?
> Thousands of multiplier effects!
>
> Your BIG BANG is BULLSHIT, instead of thousands of
> small multipliers we get a BMW, and a multi-million
> dollar home.. IN CALIFORNIA! B^p
>
> totally fucked economics!
If you say so...
I'm sure everyone listens to you!
You obviously believe that clogging a newsgroup with your messages
somehow makes yours the only truth, don't you?
> > you will have your paradise.
>
> You are the simple minded cretin who talks in such lunatic
> platitudes..
> go and bleat at some other poor buggers for a while! B^D
So, why do you bother replying - and in such tone, too?
Has the cretin touched a raw nerve there somwhere?
> > Maybe you can then rename the place - to UASR (Union of Australian
> > Socialist Republics) {;-)
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
>
> This from a woman whose philosophy is clearly imbedded in
> 17th century ideas of noblesse oblige! B^D
>
> You are a laughable little jumped up petty bourgeoisie...
> remember me in thirty years when the realization of what a pup
> you have been sold, finally dawns....
>
> remember... i know the world of your working class background
> which you now despise, and the one of the corporate dream world
> which now holds you captive... both are to be transcended.
...just more crap!
> > Good luck, my friend...
>
> I wish you every financial success you desire....
...thanks, I've already got that!
> decades of proud achievement...
How many have you had - besides annoying everyone at aus.politics?
> sweeping triumph in shaping the world to your will....
I don't need that - but thanks anyway!
You see, unlike you, I have obviously managed to achieve what I had set
out to achieve...
All I really want now is to be left alone.
I do not ask others to give me more, or to do as I say. I do not have
delusions of grandeur. I am grateful for growing up in Australia and I
wish the place all the best. I wish its people to achieve what they want
- and that seems to be, by and large, right or wrong, material success.
It can be done - without your social engineering and without your
politics of class division. Without the cultivation of hate of success
and the "poor me" syndrome you so obviously revel in.
And thanks for the poem!
Do come back when you're more coherent again!
TJ Lim
Siegen <fin...@end.of.message> wrote in message
news:38d6af91...@news.pacific.net.au...
> :>
> :> > You are right, the tory politics of division have ensured ALL the
> :> > pain of structural unemployment, and the borderline poverty of a
> :> > casualised workforce has been borne by the new underclass.
> :>
> :> Yeah, those bastard Tories, bringing unemployment to a lower level than
it
> :> ever was under Labor.
> unemployed.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Che Guava
bleat from you about the trials of being a wealthy entrepreneur, aw diddums!
B^p
I note copious back peddling now, in other posts, about how happy and
well adjusted you are! B^D
But you started out under the dramatic header "Exodus"
with a lament about the need to escape from the tory workers paradise thus:
" ..we are "The Whingeing Nation".
.. Australians are still the "battlers' nation",
...governed by the politics of envy and hatred of success...
.. record numbers of successful Australians leaving the country for overseas.
Their reason? Apparently, they are, by and large, sick of being
penalized for their success...so they are off, exporting their talents
to other countries, who will appreciate them more...
Having listened to Ziggy Switkowski (Telstra boss) lamenting about how
he loses his top talents to, predominantly, the US, because he cannot
match the pay on offer, I sympathised.
Having read about the top 10% of Australians coughing up 70% of tax
collected in this country,I sympathised. After all, having contributed
over $100K in the last 12 months to the ATO's coffers, I am now leaving,
too...
I think this country (in many ways still the LUCKY one) has some major
problems. Above anything, THE major problem is the cultivated dislike
the "battlers" feel for those more enterprising (read: more successful)
Australians. The fact that more and more people forget how well off they
are (compared to the majority of the world's population) and keep
prattling on about "inequality", "relative poverty levels" the
"end-of-the-world-is-coming GST" etc."
and then the bit that caught my eye, and, IMHO, justifies *any*
rude response I may choose to make SO LONG AS I
PRESENT AS MUCH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AS
YOU HAVE HERE (i.e. fuck all! B^p):
"But I do think that the kind of bleeding-heart, Che Guava-type
"it's all a tory conspiracy" thinking is driving this place under.
I, for one, am sick of paying through the nose for the socialist pipe
dream. Until this place wakes up, farewell!
Kathy"
What is this "It's all a tory conspiracy" nonsence...
Can you quote *a single* post of mine which posits
a conspiracy? And are you seriously suggesting that
I am responsible for the 'bleeding-heart' welfare state,
rather than say, Robert Menzies, who actually helped build
and sustain it?
BY WHAT RIGHT OR REASON DO YOU ASSIGN ALL
THE PAST HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS
LEADING TO AUSTRALIA'S CURRENT SITUATION
TO *ME*? AND, IF I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
PROBLEMS, IS GROWTH DUE TO ME TOO? B^p
I claim royalties.
So lets see how the *major problem* you have identified
('battlers jealousy'?) is to be blamed on *me*, shall we, Ms Torquemada?
kathy...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <38C77144...@my-deja.com>,
> Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> ...delete "s/he wrote"...
ooooh! you lying little trollop!
you didn't write 'delete' you wrote the far more insulting:
> ...cut a whole lot of woffle...
which fully justified my aggressive return:
> > I noted your stream of consciousness, tory bitching was gone,
> > but so was my pointed parody! B^p
>
> Your pointed parody?
> I would have described it as disconnected ravings of a lunatic...
well, I had to match your careful exposition of angst, well supported
by a total lack of facts, and balanced by heavily laid blame, without
foundation.
As I was the prime target of your irrational vehemence, a little
emotive sarcasm on my part would seem justified.
Or does your experience as a little tinpot bossy-boots over your
'corporate empire' lead you to think that we will all automatically
regard your every utterance as divine wisdom?
Sorry shifty... I don't work for you, so I don't have to salve your ego. B^p
> > > Not much point in bothering to debate you on this, Che!
> >
> > You always were a hit and run quitter.
> > Shovel a little bile, and then denounce the riposte as being :
>
> I have?
Well go back to the source... "The exodus" B^p
Like Nev Duigoods famous never-ending swan song..
its full of self-pitying, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger,
repent-now-before-i-go self-serving bullshit.
It really boils down to "I'm quitting, so long losers..it was
all Che's fault!" B^p
Pardon my snigger! B^D
> Funny that; I remember quite a few occasions this description would have
> fitted you perfectly...particularly when you were asked some unpleasant
> questions - like what gave you the right to assume the high moral
> ground!
What 'high moral ground' You attacked me.. i hit back! B^p
Get real... you are the one giving the little moralising speech!
Go back and read it!
> (But, I forget - with the Left, high moral ground is a given!)
Well, you try to give it, but you don't like to take it when it's
given back. Brittle tory princess.
I can see why you need to constantly brag about your
hero of the state status in E. Europe.
And the way you constantly demand to see others business card..
to determine pecking order, merely shows you have never got beyond
middle level management.
Like noveau riche, you constantly display, an ostentatious giveaway! B^D .
Real money wears jeans and sneakers, babe. ;-)
Same with real achievement. B^)
> > > This was one of your famous "full of shit - nothing to say -
> > > twist-the-facts-a-little"
> >
> > > posts...
> >
> > Oh, nothing like your pathetic tory bleating about the trials
> > of the Ayn Rand Fountainhead?
>
> What are you on about?
> I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I have never even
> mentioned Ayn Rand, or anything to do with that author.
I didn't say you READ it.. (god knows your education is limited)
I implied YOU LIVED IT! B^D
If you *had* read it, and then cast a knowing eye on your "Saga of the
Successful" you wouldn't be asking 'What are you on about?' B^p
(Ask Wearing to explain.. he will JUMP at the chance.. ;-)
> > Relieved only by gratuitous insults to the whole Australian
> > nation who failed to meet your pecuniary standards! B^D
>
> "Insults" as defined by Mr FruitLoop - the Consciousness Of The
> Community...
" ..we are "The Whingeing Nation"....
...governed by the politics of envy and hatred of success..."
.. record numbers of successful Australians leaving the country for overseas...
...exporting their talents to other countries, who will appreciate them more...
.. this country (in many ways still the LUCKY one) has some major
problems. Above anything, THE major problem is the cultivated dislike
the "battlers" feel for those more enterprising (read: more successful)
Australians. "
As i said, not mine, but YOUR "gratuitous insults to the whole Australian
nation who failed to meet your pecuniary standards!" B^p
> > You simply lack self analysis.
>
> Again - funny coming from you; one who analyses everyone and everything,
> but only from his peculiar viewpoint.
read your post.
Is the perspective from the people, or looking down on them?
You don't know where you came from, you don't know where you
are, but you are sure you got there by your own efforts alone! B^p
> > Next, we ignore EVERY counter point raised, and establish
> > some self-serving criteria for the right to speak! B^D
And on that, the essence of my criticism you have no answer:
> >
> > I haven't seen anything quite so reactionary since the universal
> > franchise
> > was rejected during the Putney debates in 1647, when people you would
> > have felt right at home amongst argued ONLY MEN OF SUBSTANCE
> > (LANDHOLDERS) SHOULD HAVE THER VOTE!
> >
> > Like you they were anti-democratic, class riddled ideologues,
> > who could not stand the idea of EVERYONE being
> > ENTITLED to RIGHTS!
> More disjointed woffle...
Only because you are so totally self-possessed you cannot see the
degree by which you judge merit ONLY according to your own
definitions of success. You have achieved petit bourgeoisie success,
therefore that must be the measure of virtue! B^D
It sounds almost plausible until you are challenged,
and then you fall apart and prove incapable of sustained
response.
Next we will have some 'excuse'... B^p
> BTW - I think you need a new keyboard. The old one tends to get stuck on
> caps...
I was SHOUTING because I thought your unresponsiveness
might be DEAFNESS, but it is apparent you are just THICK! B^D
> > So what are the tory conditions for FULL CITIZENSHIP privileges:
>
> I don't know what the "tory" ones are, but if you are talking about
> right-of-center politics, then ask the Department of Immigration - I'm
> sure they can advise you on current government's policies on the matter.
I know you are done for when you describe the substantive point
as 'woffle' and compensate by responding volubly to the ironic. ;-)
> > > Never mind; I am sure you have, in your lifetime, created plenty of
> jobs
> > > for your fellow Australians, you have contributed tens of thousands
> in
> > > taxes, to help create a better society, you have done your military
> duty
> > > (in Vietnam, was it?) and these days you donate all your income to
> noble
> > > causes...
> > > Is that so?
> >
> > Two of these more than Jesus, one less than Hitler.
> >
> > But you have no right to ask. It demonstrates the shallow price-tag
> > you place on ideas.
>
> I have no right to ask,
that's right you have no right to define WHAT the requirements for
holding forth with an opinion are. You have no right to make
citizenship contingent on success.
Even so, I have riddled you an answer, if you have the wit for it.
> and yet YOU have the right to accuse me of
> shallowness and greed; without even knowing me!
Hell, you STARTED by offhandedly blaming the entire
"Australian dilemma" ON ME, single-handedly!
ON WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE, HEY???
Surely I have the right to point out that you CONFESS
material success beyond most peoples dreams, while at the same
time whinging about the place that gave it to you so vehemently
that you are going to EXODUS the land of bondage! B^D
Far go sport! B^p
And you wonder why some may have responded with a throaty:
FUCK OFF!
> Why does your hypocricy not surprise me?
Because it is a fabrication.
> Is it because it's to be expected from the likes of yourself?
Look, you BEGAN by pre-judging me guilty, your
'expectations' needed no substance then, nor will they now.
Lets have a little irrelevant self-congratulation break:
> I am GREEDY, because I, instead of sitting on my arse, wallowing in
> misery, hating anyone who's better off than me, chose to make some
> effort and get ahead - creating jobs for others in the process. I am
> GREEDY, because I wish to keep more of what I earn for my 60+hour
> average working weeks, so I can choose what to do with those funds,
> rather than handing them over to bureaucrats to "redistribute", wasting
> over a third in the process!
No, you are greedy for taking all the credit, giving everyone else
all the blame, and fucking off, with malice. ok? ;-)
(I didn't say you were without redeeming merit, I am sure you are
an efficient little technocrat.. it's when you claim godhood on the basis
of it that the peasants start to feel squeamish)
> You, on the other hand, having failed in a business venture yourself (as
> you told me),
B^D Was that the "Clay referral Clinic" Nth Brighton and "Solid Mud"
Brunswick St Fitzroy; pottery and lifestyle design to the fashion challenged
back in the Hippie era!? Where we gave ceramic sculptures away to
cute kids and beautiful women!?
And smoked the profits or blew them on board meetings in Bali!? B^D
Jesus, you *are* desperate for ammo! I have had two careers and
a family since then! ;-)
Ah, you wound me with fond memories.. life was so rich then! B^D
The beautiful follies of youth.
> now practise "feel-good" politics and tell me I must hand
> over more of the fruits of my labor!
Oh, don't be so wet! I haven't asked any such thing! B^p
Perhaps that's your 'inner voice' calling you, Scrooge! B^D
> Who is the greedy one?
You.
> Who is the morally corrupt one?
Wearing?
> Like it or not, we are not living in a Buddhist monastery.
Oh, believe me.. I like it. I can handle the cold showers and
Zen gardens, but the chanting gives me headaches.. and NO
ONE hits me with a bamboo pole! B^)
> Your moral "superiority" is illusory -
Sure, the illusion is yours.. I don't claim moral superiority..
I admonish the rich because it's a sacred duty, not because I
am different.
> as it is judged according to criteria you yourself have devised.
No, its revealed. You just need to read, investigate for yourself
and be willing to self-criticise. The precepts for right living have
always been known.
> Your reluctance to talk about your real world achievents speaks volumes
> - and it does nothing for your credibility.
JESUS, YOU HAVE A HIDE! You have just dredged up an
out-of context anecdote from my past, shared originally with you
in framework of later professional and career success, and flung
it back at my with the bogus imputation that I am a material failure! B^D
You really are a hypocritical little tory bitch! B^p
I withdraw my fond farewell, and good wishes.. I hope you
get gunned down in a shopping mall by a coke crazed five
year old from a wealthy hollywood family, just as you are
about to seal the deal of a lifetime! B^D
> Even thousands of your posts to Usenet whave not changed that fact.
Now lets get this straight.. unlike you, I am so cowardly that I don't reveal
enough of myself, (except the bits you distort to fit your bullshit tableau,
but you *know* that I am a failed, impoverished, pinko dreamer. ;-)
Have you been sleeping with Mosley? B^D
> > > If not, why not?
> >
> > It is self serving for plutocrats to claim that rights are based on
> > property ownership, or income.
>
> Who said anything about "rights"?
Me. with the small temple you had built to the glory of the 'successful'
and the presentation of them as superior human archetypes, I thought
a little mention of equality with mere mortals was called for.
> As usual, you're full of it!
Rights? of course, but I carry all my responsibilities with great care too.
And I tend not to blame the peasants for lack of leadership quite
as readily as you do. (It's marks you as one only relatively recently
used to power and influence.. in a small circle.)
> > But at least you are honest in your rejection of democracy,
> > and support for a dollar meritocracy.
>
> As usual, you're full of it!
But that is ABSOLUTELY the line you were developing.
YOU are successful.
YOU are being 'held back' by the ignorant masses.
THEY are jealous.
give me a break! I suspect you should spend some time with an
analyst! B^p
> I support betterment thru one's own endeavors - a concept totally
> foreign to you and others like you.
Yes, we all support that, dummy.. that's why we have a mixed economy.
Where you go further is standing on your small mountain bemoaning
the tininess of the ants you see below.. it's all a bit sick making.
> Your woffle about "rights" "dollar meritocracy" etc. is merely a
> smokescreen for your inability to answer a question that hits too close
> to home!
Talking about a dollar meritocracy is a smokescreen
for refusing to play "how big is your wallet"?
I wish you could hear yourself,
Besides, if you have the wit for riddles I have already more
than half answered your question...
...as I blew it out of the water.... B^D
For such a business giant you are not very agile. ;-)
> > Personally I despise it, and even where I can meet your criteria,
> > refuse to do so, it is an insult to those who cannot.
>
> It is not an insult - the ones who genuinely cannot are few and far
> between.
> Most either will not, or dare not - for whatever reason.
WHAT???? Lets revisit your criteria for the DOLLAR MERITOCRACY!
" I am sure you have, in your lifetime, created plenty of jobs
...contributed tens of thousands in taxes...
...done your military duty...
.... donate all your income to noble causes..."
So Lets see, fuck the Ten Commandments, what did that idiot god know
anyway... on your new entrepreneurial scales of monetary virtue..
THREE OF THE FOUR CRITERIA RELATE TO WEALTH!
Shit, Shifty... how could anyone confuse THAT with a 'dollar meritocracy'.
As I said.. you would have Bill Gates as a finer human being than Jesus
(rules #2 and #4, with #1 arguable ;-)
And Adolph Hitler superior to Mother Theresa (By #3 as well as #1 & #2)
I do hope this is sufficient to demonstrate what UNUTTERABLE TWADDLE
you are crapping on with.
(Do you need a ride to the airport yet?)
> > You would reject Galileao and Newton in favour of Skase and Bond
> >
> > You really are a moral cripple!
>
> I would reject you in favor of someone more coherent - any time!
You didn't even GET how accurate I was in my assessment...
This time THINK about it BEFORE responding.
> > > You - the GREATEST (in your own words!) the
> >
> > > Visoinary, the Defender Of
> > > The Poor! Just cry on, my dear -
> >
> > You are the WORST of whiners.... B^p
> > lacking in wit OR wisdom...
> > savage but purposeless..
> > empty of any redeeming merit.
> >
> > TOTALLY SELF SERVING!
> >
> > Criticising the efforts of others even as you abandon the field of
> > struggle!
> >
> > RANK HYPOCRITE, TRUE TORY QUEEN! B^D
>
> Resorting to offending me will not exonerate you from the predicament
> you have placed yourself into.
Sweet jesus! LOOK AT WHAT I AM RESPONDING TO!
It is perfectly measured and in kind. B^p
> Self-serving, self-appointed "consciousness of the nation"!
> One must play by your own rules; or you resort to insults.
Sweet jesus! LOOK AT WHAT I AM RESPONDING TO!
It is perfectly measured and in kind. B^p
> > > I'm sure that after most of the enterprising,
> > > job-creating, tax-paying Australians have "fucked off",
> >
> > Are they all planning to take a $13 million package?
>
> One sparrow does spring make, you know...
Bond Skase, Kennett, Entsch, Elliot.. just the lead birds
in the flock...
You don't think it gives workers daily under threat of being
retrenched some cause for bitterness?
But hey... you are the one complaining about the 'tall poppy
lopping' syndrome, while standing knee deep in clover! B^p
> Idiot remarks of this kind do not deserve serious comment.
That's why I have adopted such a mocking tone with you. ;-)
> > Sorry, we would have been FAR BETTER OFF with
> > a million $13 packages, every one buying milk and bread!
>
> And what?
That's it! ...we would have been infinitely better off with many
small domestic expenditures, than a large cash export.
QED.
> Besides the fact that this constant pet story of yours
I don't believe I've spoken of it before!
Certainly not with GUFF! I haven't seen the poor
devil since he humiliated himself months ago.. long
before this story of the AMP pirate.
You are starting to fray at the edges, dear.
> has been comprehensively demolished by Geoff,amongst others, in the
> past,
Must be the imaginary past.. I haven't crossed swords with Guff
since WAY BEFORE the AMP golden handshake.
> what does that have to do with talented, generally young,
> Australians leaving?
Your comment was about the situation the rest of
us would find ourselves in:
"after most of the enterprising, job-creating, tax-paying
Australians have "fucked off"
(Pure Ayn Rand, READ Fountainhead, *you* will love it! Wearing
would lend you his copy, but the pages are probably stuck together! B^)
Young Australians have ALWAYS made their way into the wider world!
Your bitchy "exodus" of the greedy disgruntled is something else.
> > Thousands of multiplier effects!
> >
> > Your BIG BANG is BULLSHIT, instead of thousands of
> > small multipliers we get a BMW, and a multi-million
> > dollar home.. IN CALIFORNIA! B^p
> >
> > totally fucked economics!
>
> If you say so...
> I'm sure everyone listens to you!
Well, you STARTED by blaming the whole Australian
situation on ME! B^p
> You obviously believe that clogging a newsgroup with your messages
> somehow makes yours the only truth, don't you?
Look, why don't you just be HONEST.. you really don't
believe *anyone* without a Gold AMEX should be posting!
It was your 'parting sideswipe' that painted such broad brush
condemnation that you really had to be asked what
you had to substantiate your bile... except a pained expression!? B^D
> > > you will have your paradise.
> >
> > You are the simple minded cretin who talks in such lunatic
> > platitudes..
> > go and bleat at some other poor buggers for a while! B^D
>
> So, why do you bother replying - and in such tone, too?
Because you mindlessly, and without foundation, slagged
me as the evil zeitgeist of an ailing nation. B^p
Somewhat flattering, but TOTALLY LUNATIC! B^D
The fact that you did it as part of a pep talk from the
quitting coach just added the right flavour of hypocrisy to
pique my attention. ;-)
> Has the cretin touched a raw nerve there somwhere?
I don't know, have you taken your panties off? B^D
(SHEEEIT, that one will get me in trouble with the humourless
and the PC! B^D
> > > Maybe you can then rename the place - to UASR (Union of Australian
> > > Socialist Republics) {;-)
> >
> > BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> >
> > This from a woman whose philosophy is clearly imbedded in
> > 17th century ideas of noblesse oblige! B^D
> >
> > You are a laughable little jumped up petty bourgeoisie...
> > remember me in thirty years when the realization of what a pup
> > you have been sold, finally dawns....
> >
> > remember... i know the world of your working class background
> > which you now despise, and the one of the corporate dream world
> > which now holds you captive... both are to be transcended.
>
> ...just more crap!
You have reached stage 1 - Denial. B^D
> > > Good luck, my friend...
> >
> > I wish you every financial success you desire....
>
> ...thanks, I've already got that!
>
> > decades of proud achievement...
>
> How many have you had - besides annoying everyone at aus.politics?
>
> > sweeping triumph in shaping the world to your will....
>
> I don't need that - but thanks anyway!
> You see, unlike you, I have obviously managed to achieve what I had set
> out to achieve...
> All I really want now is to be left alone.
> I do not ask others to give me more, or to do as I say. I do not have
> delusions of grandeur. I am grateful for growing up in Australia and I
> wish the place all the best. I wish its people to achieve what they want
> - and that seems to be, by and large, right or wrong, material success.
> It can be done - without your social engineering and without your
> politics of class division. Without the cultivation of hate of success
> and the "poor me" syndrome you so obviously revel in.
There, just one round of therapy with Doc Che, spiritual
guru to the sad and lonely, and already you have lost the
carping, bitter tone of your first post, and sound much
more positive!
> And thanks for the poem!
Your recovered equilibrium is thanks enough.
Obviously tough-love works!
My work here is done.
> Do come back when you're more coherent again!
*I'm* not going anywhere, I have people here who depend on me.
When is your flight due?
Che
-----
Che Guava
David Wareing wrote:
> in article 38C7574C...@my-deja.com, Che Guava at che_...@my-deja.com
> wrote on 9/3/00 18:18:
>
> >> You know, John, you've always impressed me as well-meaning, albeit at
> >> times slightly confused individual (no offense, please!)
> >
> > And you have always struck me as a brittle prima donna.
> > willing to slag people, but if challenged, playing dead.
>
> Bwaahahahahahahah!!!! Oh, this is brilliant! CliChe, stop
> it, please - you're cracking me up.
>
> YOU, of all people, bitching about slagging off and then
> beating a retreat! YOU! What next, you'll be complaining
> about people not sticking to the point or people whining?!?
I have quite an archive of our past encounters by now, Wearing.
I kept each encounter where you flounced on stage
took a little ad hom dump, and the fled when called to account! B^D
I think I will post one a week. B^D
I thought of commencing with the famous Small Business
encounter (that's where you and shifty joined in our little menage a trois..
when she began to circle around my flame, and you around hers! ;-)
Or the 10 Commandments episode, where you had to have your nose
rubbed in the degree to which our modern law owes a debt to religious
teachings.
But then I remembered the your famous General Armchair plea for
Indonesian appeasement! B^D That was a delight, when your tory
leader followed my exhortations and left you complaining that he stuck
you with the levy to pay for it! Ah, such patriotism!
I toyed with the idea of starting with the famous "pack hunt" of
tory jackals, but your role in that was minor.. playing bum-boy
to Guffs lead.. As I recall, you basically stood there, holding his dick
while he made thrusting points! B^D
Pair of tory wankers! B^D
But then, browsing, I lighted on this little gem..
desperate for something to say, you tried for a numeracy flame:
Repost
=====
David Wareing <dwar...@adelaide.on.net>
wrote in article <dwareing-280...@ppp610.adelaide.on.net.au>...
I will treasure forever this fine example of Wearings witlessness,
humour deficiency disorder, and tedious bile....
It seems the best he can muster, is an attack on my numeracy. 8^D
Jealousy is a curse! B^D
> In article <01bef121$5dcd4120$18041ecb@default>, "Che Guava"
> <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>> Mosley is down for the count.. 9
>>
>> Mosley likes to lie and cheat, he thinks that slanders fun
>> Che's challenge is "Fight Like a Man, I'll show you how it's done."
>> Will Mosley take a stand and fight, or will the coward run
>> The crowd will soon find out; the count, it stands at...ONE }8^)
>>
>> MOSLEY MUST SAY
>> WHO IS CHE
>> OR ELSE GO AWAY
>>
>> "Now mosley is a dirty dog, with jackals on his crew
>> they hunt in packs, not one-on-one, whenever there's a blue.
>> That's why this high-noon shootout's fair, it's either me or you.
>> So will you run, or have a go, (The count is now at... TWO)" B-)
>>
>> MOSLEY MUST SAY
>> WHO IS CHE
>> OR ELSE GO AWAY
>>
>> The rules are very simple, the same for you and me
>> Post Che's name, and from aus.pol, i promise i will flee
>> But if you fail, then you should go, it's fair, don't you agree?
>> I know you cannot prove your lie.. so far the count is.. THREE }B^]
>>
>> MOSLEY MUST SAY
>> WHO IS CHE
>> OR ELSE GO AWAY
>>
>> Mosley is down for the count of FOUR
>> No one thinks he will get up for more
>> a powerful right hook sent him to the floor
>> and from the crowd, brought a mighty roar! B^)
>>
>> MOSLEY MUST SAY
>> WHO IS CHE
>> OR ELSE GO AWAY
>>
>> His pride has taken a terrible hit
>> lashed by the jabs of superior wit
>> he lies on the mat, barely alive
>> as the Ref counts him out ...three..four... FIVE! :^)
>>
>> MOSLEY MUST SAY
>> WHO IS CHE
>> OR ELSE GO AWAY
>>
>> Mosley can't throw punches, so he tried to throw muck,
>> But nothing helped, now he's out of luck
>> he tried throwing mud, but it wouldn't stick
>> Now the gutless coward has been counted for ...SIX! 8^)
>>
>> MOSLEY MUST SAY
>> WHO IS CHE
>> OR ELSE GO AWAY
>>
>> The count is at SEVEN and things don't look well
>> Mosleys claim that he knows me is starting to smell.
>> It wouldn't take much, if he knows, just to tell..
>> But his silence means lying.. and damns him to hell. ;-)
>>
>>
>> MOSLEY MUST SAY
>> WHO IS CHE
>> OR ELSE GO AWAY
>>
>>
>> Mosley fights dirty, he will scratch and bite
>> he punches low, but his punches are light...
>> When he's drunk in the pub, he brags he's great
>> But he hasn't got up yet, and the count is .... EIGHT
>>
>> MOSLEY MUST SAY
>> WHO IS CHE
>> OR ELSE GO AWAY
>>
>> "The count is at NINE, things look pretty grim
>> his strength is fast fading, his vision is dim
>> the harsh truth hits Mosley, he is out of his class
>> he's been battered and beaten, and knocked on his arse.
>>
>> MOSLEY MUST SAY
>> WHO IS CHE
>> OR ELSE GO AWAY
>>
>>
>>
>> Che Undefeated Champion of Fair Play.
>> ---
>>
>> Like all gutless cowards, Mosley likes to gloat
>> His punches are limp,but his bragging, full throat.
>> One thing you can bet on, down at the tote.
>> For worlds weakest bigmouth, he gets the vote. B^(
>>
>> MOSLEY MUST SAY
>> WHO IS CHE
>> OR ELSE GO AWAY
>
> It's going to be interesting to see if CliChe can count
> past the number of digits on his hands!
I tell you what, Dave.. lets combine your obvious
knowledge of Boxing with your poetic skills and
love of truth.....
you can write verses eleven through twenty! B^D
>
> "I am da Count!!! I love to count!"
Well, yes, you did manage a rhyme...
... but it would have been more impressive if it wasn't achieved
by repetition! B^D
W,w,w,w,w,w.. what a stutter you have developed.. W,W,W,W,Wearing! B^D
Che
------
BTW
I see no evidence whatever that you are capable of counting,
another example of your exaggerated sense of your own importance, prat!
Garth Foster
Who gives a shit anyway? If they are sloughing off some staff, doesn't
that mean they are becoming more efficient? I thought that was the
whole idea.
If you think businesses ought to retain unnecessary staff, then you
presumably endorse limitless enlargement of the Public Service, with
the extra staff being paid simply to dig holes and fill them in.
doug
>
>
> The best proof of the Whingeing Nation.
> Nice speaking to you, Siegen! No doubt, we'll meet again!
> Kath
>
'bye, kath.
Doug.
kathy...@my-deja.com
Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
> We really need to remember the source of this thread, a long and fact-free
> bleat from you about the trials of being a wealthy entrepreneur, aw diddums!
> B^p
The trials of being a wealthy entrepreneur? I thought it was mainly a comment
about the Australian trait of "cutting the tall poppies down to size" - as
witnessed on plentiful occasions here in aus.politics.
> I note copious back peddling now, in other posts, about how happy and
> well adjusted you are! B^D
Yes; I do have a life...like it or not! That's why over the past year or so,
I have posted only a fraction of contributions to aus. politics (and
elsewhere), compared to you. You see, there is a difference between whingeing
and observing a fact.
> But you started out under the dramatic header "Exodus"
> with a lament about the need to escape from the tory workers paradise thus:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I know how proud you are to have converted some
susceptible souls to your main claim-to-fame - the plentiful usage of the,
otherwise unused and hardly known, term "tory". However, I draw to your
attention the fact that the above quote of yours is not only a contradiction
it terms, but, if you have a complaint about the current political setup in
this country, you need to take into account that much of it is still the
result of 13 years of ALP government. Or are you saying the ALP are "tories",
too? Poor FruitLoop - and then you deny your feelings about the "tory
conspiracy"...(as witnessed further in your post). "Tories are everywhere,
aren't they? You know, apparently some Haldol or Thorazine does relieve your
symptoms!
...delete Kath's post for space...
>
> and then the bit that caught my eye, and, IMHO, justifies *any*
> rude response I may choose to make SO LONG AS I
> PRESENT AS MUCH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AS
> YOU HAVE HERE (i.e. fuck all! B^p):
>
> "But I do think that the kind of bleeding-heart, Che Guava-type
> "it's all a tory conspiracy" thinking is driving this place under.
> I, for one, am sick of paying through the nose for the socialist pipe
> dream. Until this place wakes up, farewell!
> Kathy"
>
> What is this "It's all a tory conspiracy" nonsence...
> Can you quote *a single* post of mine which posits
> a conspiracy?
Perhaps not in the Confederate Action Party or Citizens' Electoral Councils'
terms; but your endless posts about the world going to hell, the threat of
globalism ("tory" ideology, right!), the evils of the free market (another
"tory" invention!)...it all implies enough for me to confront you with it. I
do not have 24 hours a day, like you seem to have, to catalog and store my
previous glorious battles on Usenet. Neither do I keep the posts of those I
dislike on file, for future mud-slinging. Sorry to disappoint you! It's not
worth my while; I know I can never convince you of anything I say, nor can I
be bothered trying. There are those who will observe and learn; there are
those who will not. Alas, you belong firmly in the latter category...
> And are you seriously suggesting that
> I am responsible for the 'bleeding-heart' welfare state,
> rather than say, Robert Menzies, who actually helped build
> and sustain it?
Not at all. Mr. "I Can't Read What You Wrote"! There is a difference between
the intentions of the, generally well-meaning, architects of the original
welfare state, and the type of welfare mentality some people exhibit today.
Had you read what I said properly, you would have noticed I said: "Che
Guava-type thinking". I used you as an example; the type of stuff you keep
repeating here is a good demonstration of what many Australian "battlers" are
encouraged to think.
> BY WHAT RIGHT OR REASON DO YOU ASSIGN ALL
> THE PAST HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS
> LEADING TO AUSTRALIA'S CURRENT SITUATION
> TO *ME*?
Who said "all"? I said you were a good example of the problem, not an
architect of it - as much as your ego would love that!
> AND, IF I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
> PROBLEMS, IS GROWTH DUE TO ME TOO? B^p
No; it's despite the likes of you.
> I claim royalties.
What for?
I thought material success was not important to you?
> So lets see how the *major problem* you have identified
> ('battlers jealousy'?) is to be blamed on *me*, shall we, Ms Torquemada?
>
> kathy...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > In article <38C77144...@my-deja.com>,
> > Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...delete "s/he wrote"...
>
> ooooh! you lying little trollop!
>
> you didn't write 'delete' you wrote the far more insulting:
>
> > ...cut a whole lot of woffle...
>
> which fully justified my aggressive return:
>
> > > I noted your stream of consciousness, tory bitching was gone,
> > > but so was my pointed parody! B^p
> >
> > Your pointed parody?
> > I would have described it as disconnected ravings of a lunatic...
>
> well, I had to match your careful exposition of angst, well supported
> by a total lack of facts, and balanced by heavily laid blame, without
> foundation.
>
> As I was the prime target of your irrational vehemence, a little
> emotive sarcasm on my part would seem justified.
No, my friend; you ASSUMED you were the prime target. Sorry about that; your
megalomania is getting out of hand!
> Or does your experience as a little tinpot bossy-boots over your
> 'corporate empire' lead you to think that we will all automatically
> regard your every utterance as divine wisdom?
Not at all...however, your reaction to a passing reference to your NetName
implies you are perhaps unfulfilled in some way or another?..
> Sorry shifty... I don't work for you, so I don't have to salve your ego. B^p
No need; nothing wrong with it. I'm not sure I'd want you to work for me,
anyhow; I'd have to watch how much of your (paid) worktime you spend on
Usenet!
> > > > Not much point in bothering to debate you on this, Che!
> > >
> > > You always were a hit and run quitter.
> > > Shovel a little bile, and then denounce the riposte as being :
> >
> > I have?
>
> Well go back to the source... "The exodus" B^p
>
> Like Nev Duigoods famous never-ending swan song..
> its full of self-pitying, more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger,
> repent-now-before-i-go self-serving bullshit.
>
> It really boils down to "I'm quitting, so long losers..it was
> all Che's fault!" B^p
>
> Pardon my snigger! B^D
You're excused!
> > Funny that; I remember quite a few occasions this description would have
> > fitted you perfectly...particularly when you were asked some unpleasant
> > questions - like what gave you the right to assume the high moral
> > ground!
>
> What 'high moral ground' You attacked me.. i hit back! B^p
>
> Get real... you are the one giving the little moralising speech!
> Go back and read it!
>
> > (But, I forget - with the Left, high moral ground is a given!)
>
> Well, you try to give it, but you don't like to take it when it's
> given back. Brittle tory princess.
>
> I can see why you need to constantly brag about your
> hero of the state status in E. Europe.
I have done that? Funny that; I have not posted anything here on the subject
until now; does that constitute "constant bragging"?
> And the way you constantly demand to see others business card..
> to determine pecking order, merely shows you have never got beyond
> middle level management.
Your words, not mine...
Your paranoia...
> Like noveau riche, you constantly display, an ostentatious giveaway! B^D .
> Real money wears jeans and sneakers, babe. ;-)
What do you wear?
Thongs and a tanktop?
> Same with real achievement. B^)
Like?
Being the most prolific aus.politics contributor?
> > > > This was one of your famous "full of shit - nothing to say -
> > > > twist-the-facts-a-little"
> > >
> > > > posts...
> > >
> > > Oh, nothing like your pathetic tory bleating about the trials
> > > of the Ayn Rand Fountainhead?
> >
> > What are you on about?
> > I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I have never even
> > mentioned Ayn Rand, or anything to do with that author.
>
> I didn't say you READ it.. (god knows your education is limited)
I'm sure your friend Jim Colbert will be pleased about this observation of
yours! (Read his and Dave Wareing's posts on the subject.)
> I implied YOU LIVED IT! B^D
>
> If you *had* read it, and then cast a knowing eye on your "Saga of the
> Successful" you wouldn't be asking 'What are you on about?' B^p
>
> (Ask Wearing to explain.. he will JUMP at the chance.. ;-)
>
> > > Relieved only by gratuitous insults to the whole Australian
> > > nation who failed to meet your pecuniary standards! B^D
> >
> > "Insults" as defined by Mr FruitLoop - the Consciousness Of The
> > Community...
>
> " ..we are "The Whingeing Nation"....
> ...governed by the politics of envy and hatred of success..."
> .. record numbers of successful Australians leaving the country for overseas...
> ...exporting their talents to other countries, who will appreciate them more...
>
> .. this country (in many ways still the LUCKY one) has some major
> problems. Above anything, THE major problem is the cultivated dislike
> the "battlers" feel for those more enterprising (read: more successful)
> Australians. "
>
> As i said, not mine, but YOUR "gratuitous insults to the whole Australian
> nation who failed to meet your pecuniary standards!" B^p
Those are insults? I think "observations" would be a more accurate
description. They are not merely my conclusions, either. If you don't believe
it, read some other posts here; or get away from the computer screen every
once in a while and talk to people.
> > > You simply lack self analysis.
> >
> > Again - funny coming from you; one who analyses everyone and everything,
> > but only from his peculiar viewpoint.
>
> read your post.
> Is the perspective from the people, or looking down on them?
It is a perspective gained from talking to people; dealing with the public on
an almost daily basis. Where does your perspective come from? Talking with
the survivors of the 60s counterculture? Or is it from reading The Age?
> You don't know where you came from, you don't know where you
> are, but you are sure you got there by your own efforts alone! B^p
>
> > > Next, we ignore EVERY counter point raised, and establish
> > > some self-serving criteria for the right to speak! B^D
>
> And on that, the essence of my criticism you have no answer:
>
> > >
> > > I haven't seen anything quite so reactionary since the universal
> > > franchise
> > > was rejected during the Putney debates in 1647, when people you would
> > > have felt right at home amongst argued ONLY MEN OF SUBSTANCE
> > > (LANDHOLDERS) SHOULD HAVE THER VOTE!
> > >
> > > Like you they were anti-democratic, class riddled ideologues,
> > > who could not stand the idea of EVERYONE being
> > > ENTITLED to RIGHTS!
>
> > More disjointed woffle...
>
> Only because you are so totally self-possessed you cannot see the
> degree by which you judge merit ONLY according to your own
> definitions of success. You have achieved petit bourgeoisie success,
> therefore that must be the measure of virtue! B^D
You have arrived to some pretty far-fetched conclusions, seeing what you have
based your reasoning on.
> It sounds almost plausible until you are challenged,
> and then you fall apart and prove incapable of sustained
> response.
It is impossible to give a sustained response to posts as erratic and jumping
to conclusions as yours tend to be.
> Next we will have some 'excuse'... B^p
>
> > BTW - I think you need a new keyboard. The old one tends to get stuck on
> > caps...
>
> I was SHOUTING because I thought your unresponsiveness
> might be DEAFNESS, but it is apparent you are just THICK! B^D
Save your voice... I respond when response is warranted. Chances are I will
soon give you the flick on this one, too! Just have a look how your "in-depth
analysis" of a 38-line post turns, within a couple of responses, to a
671-line behemoth. No wonder hardly anyone bothers to waste their evening
responding to your rantings.
> > > So what are the tory conditions for FULL CITIZENSHIP privileges:
> >
> > I don't know what the "tory" ones are, but if you are talking about
> > right-of-center politics, then ask the Department of Immigration - I'm
> > sure they can advise you on current government's policies on the matter.
>
> I know you are done for when you describe the substantive point
> as 'woffle' and compensate by responding volubly to the ironic. ;-)
Talking about "tory conditions", I thought I'd point you in the right
direction! I meant well; this is what I cop! Thanks, pal!
> > > > Never mind; I am sure you have, in your lifetime, created plenty of
> > jobs
> > > > for your fellow Australians, you have contributed tens of thousands
> > in
> > > > taxes, to help create a better society, you have done your military
> > duty
> > > > (in Vietnam, was it?) and these days you donate all your income to
> > noble
> > > > causes...
> > > > Is that so?
> > >
> > > Two of these more than Jesus, one less than Hitler.
> > >
> > > But you have no right to ask. It demonstrates the shallow price-tag
> > > you place on ideas.
> >
> > I have no right to ask,
>
> that's right you have no right to define WHAT the requirements for
> holding forth with an opinion are. You have no right to make
> citizenship contingent on success.
And, pray tell: What does your raving about "right to citizenship" and
"requirements to hold an opinion" have to do with my original post? Did I
imply (like I recall your friend Mosley has done) that the likes of you
should be silenced? Did I say you should be made to emigrate to North Korea?
> Even so, I have riddled you an answer, if you have the wit for it.
I speak straight; you talk in riddles.
Maybe that's the problem with you...it's all a riddle with no answer to you!
What is the sound of Che's tongue wagging?
>
> > and yet YOU have the right to accuse me of
> > shallowness and greed; without even knowing me!
>
> Hell, you STARTED by offhandedly blaming the entire
> "Australian dilemma" ON ME, single-handedly!
Paranoid, are we?
Read above; I used you as an _example_ (bad one, I might add!)
> ON WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE, HEY???
You have the files with all your posts. I guess it'd be a breeze to find the
answer to your own question.
>
> Surely I have the right to point out that you CONFESS
> material success beyond most peoples dreams,
It's not a dream. Almost anyone can do it. Rather than playing the pokies and
dreaming about hitting it rich - and than blaming the better off, if it does
not happen. What do you confess to?
> while at the same
> time whinging about the place that gave it to you so vehemently
> that you are going to EXODUS the land of bondage! B^D
Commenting how the place that "gave it to me" (BTW - no-one _gave_ me
anything) could be much better still. Expressing concern on how long this
plays will stay even as good as it is.
> Far go sport! B^p
How far?
> And you wonder why some may have responded with a throaty:
>
> FUCK OFF!
I do not wonder. It's a symptom of the disease. If I had chosen to stay in my
old job, and complained now here on Usenet how the boss is a prick because
s/he won't give me a pay rise, and how I might not have the job next week,
because I need to put in more effort if I want to keep it, you would be the
first one to offer support. You'd commiserate with yet another poor,
exploited battler. Because I stand on the other side of the fence, those very
"battlers" (and some chardonnay academic socialists) believe I am devil
incarnate, and "Australia's collective I.Q. will rise after she leaves" - as
someone put it in another post. I do not wonder about that; not at all. But
it does worry me.
> > Why does your hypocricy not surprise me?
>
> Because it is a fabrication.
Yeah; right!
> > Is it because it's to be expected from the likes of yourself?
>
> Look, you BEGAN by pre-judging me guilty, your
> 'expectations' needed no substance then, nor will they now.
>
> Lets have a little irrelevant self-congratulation break:
Irrelevant? It was a belated reply to your charge against me in your original
reply to my post - to which I initially could not be bothered replying.
> > I am GREEDY, because I, instead of sitting on my arse, wallowing in
> > misery, hating anyone who's better off than me, chose to make some
> > effort and get ahead - creating jobs for others in the process. I am
> > GREEDY, because I wish to keep more of what I earn for my 60+hour
> > average working weeks, so I can choose what to do with those funds,
> > rather than handing them over to bureaucrats to "redistribute", wasting
> > over a third in the process!
>
> No, you are greedy for taking all the credit, giving everyone else
> all the blame, and fucking off, with malice. ok? ;-)
>
> (I didn't say you were without redeeming merit, I am sure you are
> an efficient little technocrat.. it's when you claim godhood on the basis
> of it that the peasants start to feel squeamish)
The peasants start feeling squeamish because there is someone here who has
come from their ranks, and has gotten ahead. That is not supposed to happen,
is it? Who would the likes of you defend if everyone were happy?
> > You, on the other hand, having failed in a business venture yourself (as
> > you told me),
>
> B^D Was that the "Clay referral Clinic" Nth Brighton and "Solid Mud"
> Brunswick St Fitzroy; pottery and lifestyle design to the fashion challenged
> back in the Hippie era!? Where we gave ceramic sculptures away to
> cute kids and beautiful women!?
> And smoked the profits or blew them on board meetings in Bali!? B^D
You did not mention all the details; but I'm sure you could find the
reference.
> Jesus, you *are* desperate for ammo! I have had two careers and
> a family since then! ;-)
And what were those careers? - No underhanded intention here; I'm plain
curious. Or would that be giving too much away off the e-mythical Che Guava
status? Would it, perchance, impair your ability to fight future battles?
> Ah, you wound me with fond memories.. life was so rich then! B^D
> The beautiful follies of youth.
So rich?
The Vietnam war?
The Cold War?
The threat of a nuclear holocaust?
How was life better then than it is now?
Or was it just all that acid, man?
...cut irrelevant woffle...
>
> > Like it or not, we are not living in a Buddhist monastery.
>
> Oh, believe me.. I like it. I can handle the cold showers and
> Zen gardens, but the chanting gives me headaches..
A pill of Ecstasy helps with that! {;-)
> and NO
> ONE hits me with a bamboo pole! B^)
>
> > Your moral "superiority" is illusory -
>
> Sure, the illusion is yours.. I don't claim moral superiority..
> I admonish the rich because it's a sacred duty, not because I
> am different.
Sacred duty according to whom?
> > as it is judged according to criteria you yourself have devised.
>
> No, its revealed. You just need to read, investigate for yourself
> and be willing to self-criticise. The precepts for right living have
> always been known.
There are many ways one can define "right living". Your criteria are not
necessarily those of everyone else.
> > Your reluctance to talk about your real world achievents speaks volumes
> > - and it does nothing for your credibility.
>
> JESUS, YOU HAVE A HIDE! You have just dredged up an
> out-of context anecdote from my past, shared originally with you
> in framework of later professional and career success, and flung
> it back at my with the bogus imputation that I am a material failure! B^D
Welcome to a treatment using your own medicine!
> You really are a hypocritical little tory bitch! B^p
> I withdraw my fond farewell, and good wishes..
You did not really mean those, anyway!
> I hope you
> get gunned down in a shopping mall by a coke crazed five
> year old from a wealthy hollywood family, just as you are
> about to seal the deal of a lifetime! B^D
Better chance of that happening in Melbourne!
> > Even thousands of your posts to Usenet whave not changed that fact.
>
> Now lets get this straight.. unlike you, I am so cowardly that I don't reveal
> enough of myself, (except the bits you distort to fit your bullshit tableau,
> but you *know* that I am a failed, impoverished, pinko dreamer. ;-)
Did I say that? I challenged you to substantiate your credentials, on the
same ground you had attacked me from. I have not claimed anything about your
being impoverished, or unemployed etc. As far as being a pinko dreamer, even
that is not a description of you I'd choose.
> Have you been sleeping with Mosley? B^D
Yuk!
> > > > If not, why not?
> > >
> > > It is self serving for plutocrats to claim that rights are based on
> > > property ownership, or income.
> >
> > Who said anything about "rights"?
>
> Me. with the small temple you had built to the glory of the 'successful'
> and the presentation of them as superior human archetypes, I thought
> a little mention of equality with mere mortals was called for.
Sometimes your thinking gets a little away from what was being discussed.
> > As usual, you're full of it!
>
> Rights? of course, but I carry all my responsibilities with great care too.
>
> And I tend not to blame the peasants for lack of leadership quite
> as readily as you do. (It's marks you as one only relatively recently
> used to power and influence.. in a small circle.)
No; you blame those who wish to elevate themselves above the peasant status.
Those who take the risks, create jobs and wealth and have the hide to want to
keep some of it.
> > > But at least you are honest in your rejection of democracy,
> > > and support for a dollar meritocracy.
> >
> > As usual, you're full of it!
>
> But that is ABSOLUTELY the line you were developing.
>
> YOU are successful.
So can be most others.
> YOU are being 'held back' by the ignorant masses.
Held back? Not quite. Subject to dislike, perhaps, for not wallowing in
misery, like them. Being exposed to the "you're too well off, we want more of
your money" thinking. That's not being held back.
> THEY are jealous.
Indeed. When they should be thinking "How do I get ahead, too?"
> give me a break! I suspect you should spend some time with an
> analyst! B^p
Well, it would not be you!
> > I support betterment thru one's own endeavors - a concept totally
> > foreign to you and others like you.
>
> Yes, we all support that, dummy.. that's why we have a mixed economy.
Yes; we just differ in our individual definitions of "mixed economy".
> Where you go further is standing on your small mountain bemoaning
> the tininess of the ants you see below.. it's all a bit sick making.
Take a Panadol!
> > Your woffle about "rights" "dollar meritocracy" etc. is merely a
> > smokescreen for your inability to answer a question that hits too close
> > to home!
>
> Talking about a dollar meritocracy is a smokescreen
> for refusing to play "how big is your wallet"?
Refusing to substantiate your charges of "what have you done for your
country?".
> I wish you could hear yourself,
I can. Deafness is not one of my shortcomings.
> Besides, if you have the wit for riddles I have already more
> than half answered your question...
> ...as I blew it out of the water.... B^D
>
> For such a business giant you are not very agile. ;-)
I'll cope!
> > > Personally I despise it, and even where I can meet your criteria,
> > > refuse to do so, it is an insult to those who cannot.
> >
> > It is not an insult - the ones who genuinely cannot are few and far
> > between.
> > Most either will not, or dare not - for whatever reason.
>
> WHAT???? Lets revisit your criteria for the DOLLAR MERITOCRACY!
>
> " I am sure you have, in your lifetime, created plenty of jobs
> ...contributed tens of thousands in taxes...
> ...done your military duty...
> .... donate all your income to noble causes..."
>
> So Lets see, fuck the Ten Commandments, what did that idiot god know
> anyway... on your new entrepreneurial scales of monetary virtue..
>
> THREE OF THE FOUR CRITERIA RELATE TO WEALTH!
No shit! Might it not have something to do with what you always bleat about?
"Make the rich pay!" Might it not have anything to do with your professed
concern for the jobless? What have you done to rectify these problems -
besides complaining on Usenet? Love it or hate it, these are some of the main
foundations of our society.
> Shit, Shifty... how could anyone confuse THAT with a 'dollar meritocracy'.
>
> As I said.. you would have Bill Gates as a finer human being than Jesus
> (rules #2 and #4, with #1 arguable ;-)
>
> And Adolph Hitler superior to Mother Theresa (By #3 as well as #1 & #2)
>
> I do hope this is sufficient to demonstrate what UNUTTERABLE TWADDLE
> you are crapping on with.
>
> (Do you need a ride to the airport yet?)
I will if this post goes on for much longer!
I only have three weeks left!
...cut some...it's way too long anyway...
>
> > Self-serving, self-appointed "consciousness of the nation"!
> > One must play by your own rules; or you resort to insults.
>
> Sweet jesus! LOOK AT WHAT I AM RESPONDING TO!
>
> It is perfectly measured and in kind. B^p
>
> > > > I'm sure that after most of the enterprising,
> > > > job-creating, tax-paying Australians have "fucked off",
> > >
> > > Are they all planning to take a $13 million package?
> >
> > One sparrow does spring make, you know...
>
> Bond,
...in jail for years...
> Skase,
...who gave him back the passport? What does that have to do with the current
situation?
> Kennett,
Where is he off to?
> Entsch,
Politician; what do you expect?
Look at Paul Keating!
> Elliot..
I was under the impression the Federal Police never proved he'd done anything
wrong. What's your point?
> just the lead birds
> in the flock...
>
> You don't think it gives workers daily under threat of being
> retrenched some cause for bitterness?
You don't think many workers' attitudes give the vast majority of honest
employers some cause for bitterness?
> But hey... you are the one complaining about the 'tall poppy
> lopping' syndrome, while standing knee deep in clover! B^p
>
> > Idiot remarks of this kind do not deserve serious comment.
>
> That's why I have adopted such a mocking tone with you. ;-)
>
> > > Sorry, we would have been FAR BETTER OFF with
> > > a million $13 packages, every one buying milk and bread!
> >
> > And what?
>
> That's it! ...we would have been infinitely better off with many
> small domestic expenditures, than a large cash export.
> QED.
We would also be infinitely better of with keeping the talented young
entrepreneurs, software engineers etc. here. Yet they are leaving.
> > Besides the fact that this constant pet story of yours
>
> I don't believe I've spoken of it before!
> Certainly not with GUFF! I haven't seen the poor
> devil since he humiliated himself months ago.. long
> before this story of the AMP pirate.
>
> You are starting to fray at the edges, dear.
No, no; you have short memory! The pet story of yours is the one concerning
the million $13 packages - or something along those lines, rather than 13
million-dollar packages.
> > has been comprehensively demolished by Geoff,amongst others, in the
> > past,
>
> Must be the imaginary past.. I haven't crossed swords with Guff
> since WAY BEFORE the AMP golden handshake.
>
> > what does that have to do with talented, generally young,
> > Australians leaving?
>
> Your comment was about the situation the rest of
> us would find ourselves in:
> "after most of the enterprising, job-creating, tax-paying
> Australians have "fucked off"
> (Pure Ayn Rand, READ Fountainhead, *you* will love it!
I might just do it; but it'll have to wait a little.
> Wearing
> would lend you his copy, but the pages are probably stuck together! B^)
>
> Young Australians have ALWAYS made their way into the wider world!
Yeah; as backpackers! A little different than the current situation.
> Your bitchy "exodus" of the greedy disgruntled is something else.
Again you're off about the "greedy"!
Waste of time talking to you, it is not?
..cut a little...
> > > totally fucked economics!
> >
> > If you say so...
> > I'm sure everyone listens to you!
>
> Well, you STARTED by blaming the whole Australian
> situation on ME! B^p
We've been through that little delusion of yours!
> > You obviously believe that clogging a newsgroup with your messages
> > somehow makes yours the only truth, don't you?
>
> Look, why don't you just be HONEST.. you really don't
> believe *anyone* without a Gold AMEX should be posting!
Bull! Brilliant conclusions of yours along the lines of this one really make
me wonder about you.
...cut the rest...
Thank you for your contribution!
I don't think I ever want to go through anything this long on Usenet again!
I do hope you have a life besides your computer...
Siegen
:> In article <38dab7e6...@news.pacific.net.au>,
:> fin...@end.of.message wrote:
:> ...delete lots of "s/he wrote"...
:> > :> Unlike some people here, I do not consider myself either a
:> > :> revolutionary, or a political visionary.
Siegen:
:> > We don't consider you one either.
:> Thank you for your compliment!
If you choose to receive that as a compliment you must be quite
desperate for compliments!
:> I obviously did not notice you knew me so well...
You were drunk at the time ------ out celebrating your sheer
wonderfulness and the good fortune bestowed upon Australia by your
mere existance.
:> And, BTW - which organization do you speak for? Or is it just the
:> assumed "we" - speaking for the downtrodden masses?
Organisation?? I'm talking people not businesses.
:> > :> I have done my bit to get above the "battler" status.
Siegen:
:> > And, as soon as you do it you turn on the remaining "battlers".
:> > .... whinging about them being whingers.
:> Is that so? I thought I merely made a comment about the Australians'
:> inherent hatred of success...
Such as Mr. Bond's?
:> >> :> For that, and for giving more back in 10 years of employment than
:> >> :> many will in their lifetimes,
Siegen:
:> > You are a real life heroine Kathy. We should have a public holiday in
:> > your honour!
:> I don't think so...
Well Kath, should the truth be known, we don't actually think so
either.
:> the idea of "heros of socialist labor" and public
:> holidays and statues in their honor is no longer in fashion.
No longer in fashion with whom?
:> Perhaps, instead of planning more public holidays, people like yourself
:> could also create jobs through their own initiative.
Should I learn job creation skills from Ziggy perhaps?
:> > :> I am, as you can see, being told by some to "fuck off" and
:> > :> "good riddance".
Siegen:
:> > Well ...... why are you still here then? Haven't you gotten the
:> > message yet?
:> If I were so sensitive as to take offense from some of the stallwarts of
:> aus.politics, I could not run a business, either!
It doesn't sound like you can run a business here anyway seeings
that's the reason YOU gave for leaving.
:> You see, these days one need not actually BE in Australia - and one can
:> still post to Usenet...
You don't say! Now, thanks to Kath's enormous intellect, we all know
why there are so many posts in various newsgroups made from outside
Australia.
:> > :> These people are the best proof of what I had to say.
:> > "These people are the best proof" of what? What Ziggy whinged about?
:> The best proof of the Whingeing Nation.
But, Kath, it is YOU who is whinging, picking up your bat and going
elsewhere. Not us.
:> Nice speaking to you, Siegen! No doubt, we'll meet again!
At your next self-worshipping booze-up I hope! --- but don't go so far
as to actually bark like a doggie next time please!
:> Kath
Siegen
:> In article <38d7b1f7...@news.pacific.net.au>,
:> fin...@end.of.message wrote:
:>
:> ...delete some "s/he wrote"...
:>
:> > :> You know, John, you've always impressed me as well-meaning, albeit
:> at
:> > :> times slightly confused individual (no offense, please!)
:> > You insult him for showing how ludicrous is your sympathy for poor
:> > f.w. Ziggy and then beg John not to take offence at the insult?
:> I am polite enough to put my comments accross with some clarification
:> about what it is I'm trying to say.
Sounds more like you are full of yourself judging by how you continue
to extoll your own, perceived, virtues.
:> What makes you think John cannot answer for himself, anyway? Are you
:> so condescending or you simply are you not bright enough to realize your
:> barging in on John's behalf is much more offensive to him than my
:> comment?
Then it'd be John telling me that wouldn't it. I don't see him doing
so and I'm sure he didn't appoint you his spokeswoman on the matter.
:> By the way, what makes you think Ziggy is a fuckwit?
Ziggy does.
:> Do you think, by any chance, that he makes decisions like the one mentioned
:> above all on his own?
I doubt he could even tie his shoelaces all on his own.
:> What would you say if he presided over Telstra which were LOSING $2bn.?
He's not. So stop trying to defelct the blow.
:> Would you then consider him smart - as long as he did not sack anyone?
As things stand at the moment, it'd take a momentous achievement by
Ziggy to cause people to consider him smart.
:> > :> Telstra currently is in the worst-of-all-worlds situation.
Siegen:
:> > Have you had this independently verified or are you still just reading
:> > from Ziggy's press-release?
:> I have it verified from both being a Telstra shareholder and reading
:> business magazines.
Wow, what compelling "verification"! - by "being a Telstra
shareholder" and "reading business magazines".
The former is where you paid to buy shares you ALREADY owned because
all Australians are, automatically, shareholders. What business acumen
you display!!
The latter, being "business magazines", simply provide P.R. for
business.
Two, hardly impartial sources.
:> Which are your sources?
Ziggy.
:> > :> It's partially government owned
Siegen:
:> > It isn't "partially government owned", it is still partially owned by
:> > the people of Australia --- including you, you fool.
:> And - what?
Does the concept, "the people of Australia", elude you?
Try thinking of them as "Share holders in Australia". As such, they
want Australia run in such a way that it serves their best interests
-- not to serve the best interests of foreigners or merely selective
portions of the community such as only the business community.
:> What benefit did "the people of Australia" get out of a monopolistic
:> organization, which was way overstaffed and overcharging was the normal
:> way of doing business?
When you compare the service they received then and the infrastructure
created then to the lack of service and infrastructure they receive
now, the answer to that questions becomes apparent --- surely even to
you.
The telephone network was created by a fully government (i.e. people)
owned P.M.G./Telecom/Telstra. Not by some get-rich-quick private
company.
:> > :> and as such it is expected to, besides making
:> > :> money, also double as Social Security for all sorts of people.
Siegen:
:> > Well, the Shareholders are the ones whose interests the company claims
:> > to want to serve.
:> As they should - that is what business is all about.
Seeings all Australians are, automatically, shareholders in Telstra,
the, now, 16,000 (it's risen by 60% overnight apparently) to be fired
are, therefore, shareholders. This hardly constitutes Telstra acting
in their best interests as either shareholders or as employees.
:> Like it or hate it - the last time business was run by government
:> decree, those countries practising it went broke.
I take it you mean Russia. Russia only "went broke" when Gorbachev and
Yeltsin handed its economy over to the yanks via the I.M.F.
:> > :> While many will complain about job losses etc., it's a fact that
:> > :> Telstra now competes in the open market. It has lost a sizeable chunk of
:> > :> its initial 100% (monopoly) market share.
Siegen:
:> > Normally, this is done by reducing charges so as to attract a larger
:> > market share. Not by keeping charges high and firing employees. (Did
:> > you go to Harvard perhaps?)
:> No, I did not go to Harvard.
You didn't?? In that case you must be just simple-mindedly
regurgitating the deranged ramblings of Radio/T.V. and newsprint
"Experts".
:> However, it is obvious you yourself did
:> not, either.
Thank you.
:> I would volunteer a guess you had trouble finishing Year
:> 12...
Oh Kath! You cut me to the quick with your sharp wit ---- or, more
precisely, fuckwit.
:> How do you reduce charges without reducing costs?
By gaining a higher market share. This can be achieved by reducing
charges so that more people choose to spend their money at Telstra.
:> Or do you think the $2bn would suffice to reduce charges significantly,
:> with no further cost cutting?
The $2.1 billion dollar profit clearly shows that charges are $2.1
billion more than they need to be. So, let's say Telstra keeps one
billion dollars of that profit, it can then "spend" the other $1.2
billion by reducing charges and, thereby, attracting even more
Customers.
:> > :> Its share price has reflected this - it has been the worst
:> performing out of
:> > :> all the major telcos over the last year.
Siegen:
:> > The "little australian shareholder" is merely being stripped of
:> > his/her investment so that big corporations can collect those shares
:> > cheaply.
:> Ah - I've got it now!
:> It's all a big business conspiracy! Why did you not say that earlier?
:> You may find this a surprise, but the major players in the stock market
:> are, amongst others, mutual funds. These invest money primarily on
:> behalf of small investors.
What you mean is that Mutual funds also have investments by "small"
investors as well as investments by big investors. Whatever the
make-up is of the source of the funds they hold, the Mutual funds are,
thereby and nonetheless, big corporations.
:> The conspiracy theory fails, huh?
Your theorey about a conspiracy of "whinging battlers seeking to
destroy the 'Tall Poppies' fails dismally.
:> > :> Those "obscene" profits, as you have put it, will not last forever.
:> > :> And those, who are screaming the loudest at present, will be tho first
:> > :> ones to switch to other providers when it comes to their hip pocket.
:> > :> That is why Ziggy is doing what he's doing. I'm sure he's not doing
:> > :> it because he enjoys sacking people.
Siegen:
:> > As I already pointed out ...... normally, this is done by reducing
:> > charges so as to attract a larger market share. Not by keeping charges
:> > high and firing employees. (Did you go to Harvard perhaps?)
:> As I already pointed out - your knowledge of business practices seems to
:> leave a lot to be desired.
It seems to me that it might be your "knowledge of business practices"
leaving so much to be desired that it is "forcing" you to flee
Australia.
Siegen:
:> > Anyway, I thought you were leaving.
:> Why?
You are the one leaving so, presumedly, you should know why you
decided to leave. Why ask me? I'm not your keeper.
:> So you can debate someone who's an easier target?
They don't make targets any easier than you.
:> Kath
Cheers,
John Leister
> In article <38C680A8...@senet.com.au>,
> John Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote:
> > Ummmm kathy kiddo...... Howcome Ziggy can't
> > pay his top people what they would get in the USA?
> >
> > Telstra just announced a 2 billion, that's right billion
> > dollar obscene profit so Ziggy could afford to pay
> > his so called "top people".......
> >
> > And they sacked 10,000 today too....
> >
> You know, John, you've always impressed me as well-meaning, albeit at
> times slightly confused individual (no offense, please!)
> Telstra currently is in the worst-of-all-worlds situation. It's
> partially government owned and as such it is expected to, besides making
> money, also double as Social Security for all sorts of people.
Hello Kathy_here,
I'm rarely confused and yes I am well meaning, that's
because I like to help people.
Well this last bit of your reply is quite fascinating... In
which way does Telstra function as Social Security for
lots of different people?
Could you enlighten me as to the wonderful ways in
which they do this?
John Leister
> In article <38C77526...@senet.com.au>,
> John Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote:
> > Hi David
> >
> > The figure of 10,000 was lifted from afternoon radio
> > on the day I posted my reply to Kathy
>
> Who gives a shit anyway? If they are sloughing off some
> staff, doesn't that mean they are becoming more efficient?
> I thought that was the > whole idea.
>
> If you think businesses ought to retain unnecessary staff,
> then you presumably endorse limitless enlargement of the
> Public Service, with the extra staff being paid simply to
> dig holes and fill them in.
Oh that's clever... I never said anything
of the sort and I don't think that we would
need what you stated it would be pointless.
kathy...@my-deja.com
John Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote:
> Hey is this the same Ziggy that used to have
> a top position at Optus?
>
Indeed it is!
And he's not a fuckwit (as some have implied) either!
As I said to you elsewhere - your using the Optus network only shows why
Telstra needs to get its act together...
kathy...@my-deja.com
fin...@end.of.message wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:14:17 GMT kathy...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> :> ...delete lots of "s/he wrote"...
>
> :> > :> Unlike some people here, I do not consider myself either a
> :> > :> revolutionary, or a political visionary.
>
> Siegen:
> :> > We don't consider you one either.
>
> :> Thank you for your compliment!
> If you choose to receive that as a compliment you must be quite
> desperate for compliments!
Do you know what "sarcastic" means? Do consult your dictionary (provided
you actually own one!)
> :> I obviously did not notice you knew me so well...
> You were drunk at the time ------ out celebrating your sheer
> wonderfulness and the good fortune bestowed upon Australia by your
> mere existance.
Sorry, pal - I don't drink.
You sure it was not you who was a little out of it (and still is...)?
> :> And, BTW - which organization do you speak for? Or is it just the
> :> assumed "we" - speaking for the downtrodden masses?
> Organisation?? I'm talking people not businesses.
And, do explain: what is the difference?
I always thought businesses _were_ people...I stand corrected, huh?
> :> > :> I have done my bit to get above the "battler" status.
>
> Siegen:
> :> > And, as soon as you do it you turn on the remaining "battlers".
> :> > .... whinging about them being whingers.
>
> :> Is that so? I thought I merely made a comment about the
Australians'
> :> inherent hatred of success...
> Such as Mr. Bond's?
Why call names?
What are you trying to say?
There is only one Bond; however, Australians' hatred of success goes
back much further than that.
Or are you so young your memory remembers back 10 years?
> :> >> :> For that, and for giving more back in 10 years of employment
than
> :> >> :> many will in their lifetimes,
>
> Siegen:
> :> > You are a real life heroine Kathy. We should have a public
holiday in
> :> > your honour!
>
> :> I don't think so...
> Well Kath, should the truth be known, we don't actually think so
> either.
>
Well, why talk shit then?
Or is it, as I suspect, the normal way for you to express yourself?
> :> the idea of "heros of socialist labor" and public
> :> holidays and statues in their honor is no longer in fashion.
> No longer in fashion with whom?
With everyone except for the fossilized Left. Are you part of it?
> :> Perhaps, instead of planning more public holidays, people like
yourself
> :> could also create jobs through their own initiative.
> Should I learn job creation skills from Ziggy perhaps?
Perhaps you should. If you ever took over a former monopoly business,
you'd do the same he does.
For your information - most of those retrenched at Telstra found jobs
elsewhere in the fast growing telecommunications sector. They just have
to work a little harder now than they used to.
> :> > :> I am, as you can see, being told by some to "fuck off" and
> :> > :> "good riddance".
>
> Siegen:
> :> > Well ...... why are you still here then? Haven't you gotten the
> :> > message yet?
>
> :> If I were so sensitive as to take offense from some of the
stallwarts of
> :> aus.politics, I could not run a business, either!
> It doesn't sound like you can run a business here anyway seeings
> that's the reason YOU gave for leaving.
Well, I have run a business - one I started, too.
How about you?
> :> You see, these days one need not actually BE in Australia - and one
can
> :> still post to Usenet...
> You don't say! Now, thanks to Kath's enormous intellect, we all know
> why there are so many posts in various newsgroups made from outside
> Australia.
Glad to have been of help. Even the real thick ones can be educated - up
to a point!
> :> > :> These people are the best proof of what I had to say.
> :> > "These people are the best proof" of what? What Ziggy whinged
about?
I don't know what Ziggy whinged about; I am not his spokesperson.
You and others like you are the best proof of the truthfulness of my
original post.
> :> The best proof of the Whingeing Nation.
> But, Kath, it is YOU who is whinging, picking up your bat and going
> elsewhere. Not us.
I am going away to pursue a business opportunity.
You, on the other hand, are staying behind, whinging about how companies
are run.
What experience do you have in running a company?
Perhaps the Telstra board should ask you how to run their company?
> :> Nice speaking to you, Siegen! No doubt, we'll meet again!
> At your next self-worshipping booze-up I hope! --- but don't go so far
> as to actually bark like a doggie next time please!
>
If you talk shit, I reply in kind!
Cheers!
Gregory Lee Shearman
Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> writes:
|> Who gives a shit anyway? If they are sloughing off some staff,
|> doesn't that mean they are becoming more efficient? I thought that
|> was the whole idea.
Efficient? Why is my phone connection still copper? It should have
been photo-optic cable by now.... 56k link indeed...
We'll NEVER see photo-optic connections now that Telstra has to be
"efficient"..
Too bad efficiency doesn't relate to the speed of my connection to the
internet...
|> If you think businesses ought to retain unnecessary staff, then you
|> presumably endorse limitless enlargement of the Public Service, with
|> the extra staff being paid simply to dig holes and fill them in.
Yep... dig holes for photo-optic cables... and fill them in...
Now we'll be still using copper for the next 100 years.
--
Regards
-Gregory.
--------
".....What I am saying is, that no matter the regime's oppression and
its physical power, in the end they can't stop the people; they can't
stop freedom."
Nobel Peace Prize Winner Aung Sun Suu Kyi.
(Hidden Agendas, John Pilger - Vintage 1998 p220).
-------
Che Guava
>
> In article <38C8B0F9...@my-deja.com>,
> Che Guava <che_...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >
> > We really need to remember the source of this thread, a long and fact-free
> > bleat from you about the trials of being a wealthy entrepreneur, aw diddums!
> > B^p
>
> The trials of being a wealthy entrepreneur? I thought it was mainly a comment
> about the Australian trait of "cutting the tall poppies down to size" - as
> witnessed on plentiful occasions here in aus.politics.
Oh.. i see, So *that's* why you mentioned ME!
You are trying to get some publicity for your views
by hacking at a NG tall poppy!
Now I understand. ;-)
I have a standard endorsement fee, my bill is in the mail.
> > I note copious back peddling now, in other posts, about how happy and
> > well adjusted you are! B^D
>
> Yes; I do have a life...like it or not! That's why over the past year or so,
> I have posted only a fraction of contributions to aus. politics (and
> elsewhere), compared to you. You see, there is a difference between whingeing
> and observing a fact.
Sure, you started out whingeing, and now I have you observing facts
and counting your blessings! .
My bill is in the mail.
>
> > But you started out under the dramatic header "Exodus"
> > with a lament about the need to escape from the tory workers paradise thus:
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I know how proud you are to have converted some
> susceptible souls to your main claim-to-fame -
Oh, aren't YOU the one who "influences" and gets "things done"? B^p
If I can achieve that through the medium of Usenet, what might
I be doing in the real world?
> the plentiful usage of the, otherwise unused and hardly known, term "tory".
So is this what cutting a tall NG poppy looks like?
Is that the root cause of your bitching, that YOU don't have attention
commensurate with your true worth?
BTW, in this context, its ironic; 'tory workers paradise'.. B^p
. c'mon.. GIVE US A BREAK! B^D
> However, I draw to your
> attention the fact that the above quote of yours is not only a contradiction
> it terms,
Well, duh! B^D So why are you making it the basis of a conspiracy theory
for chrissakes?
> but, if you have a complaint about the current political setup in
> this country, you need to take into account that much of it is still the
> result of 13 years of ALP government.
Ok ok.. have it your way.. the tory workers paradise is *not* the responsibility
of the current (4, 5, 6 y.o?) government.. shit, they won't take responsibility for
Aged Care, contaminated petrol, tax bludgers, GST implementation pricing tags
or employment policy... why should this be any different?
> Or are you saying the ALP are "tories", too? Poor FruitLoop
Well the NSW Right should certainly qualify!
But that only adds to confusion.. lets just keep calling them thugs. ;-)
> - and then you deny your feelings about the "tory conspiracy"
Calling a tory government a tory government constitutes a conspiracy?
A clearly ironic reference to a 'tory workers paradise' constitutes
a 'conspiracy'?
You are seriously fucked in the head! B^p
> ...(as witnessed further in your post). "Tories are everywhere,
> aren't they?
you are really starting to rant.
> You know, apparently some Haldol or Thorazine does relieve your
> symptoms!
wow, all that from a single phrase 'tory workers paradise'!
lets see if I can find another of your buttons!
You are really entertaining when you go ballistic! B^D
(I reckon it was the E. European connotations of 'workers
paradise.. am I right? If I tell you that was inadvertent,
will you 'fess up? Otherwise I will assume some metabolic disorder. ;-)
> ...delete Kath's post for space...
I wouldn't want such evidence of everything I have claimed about
your original bleat around if I was you, either.
> >> and then the bit that caught my eye, and, IMHO, justifies *any*
> > rude response I may choose to make SO LONG AS I
> > PRESENT AS MUCH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AS
> > YOU HAVE HERE (i.e. fuck all! B^p):
> >
> > "But I do think that the kind of bleeding-heart, Che Guava-type
> > "it's all a tory conspiracy" thinking is driving this place under.
> > I, for one, am sick of paying through the nose for the socialist pipe
> > dream. Until this place wakes up, farewell!
> > Kathy"
> >
> > What is this "It's all a tory conspiracy" nonsence...
> > Can you quote *a single* post of mine which posits
> > a conspiracy?
>
> Perhaps not in the Confederate Action Party or Citizens' Electoral Councils'
> terms;
Then you need a better term than 'conspiracy' Because I have never even
begun to mount anything remotely resembling a conspiracy theory.
> but your endless posts about the world going to hell,
name three? I rarely post about the environment.
I never post about the apocalypse.
I don't believe the world is 'going to hell'
I don't believe in hell.
> the threat of globalism ("tory" ideology, right!),
no, globalism is a global phenomenon.
tory in the context I use it is typically domestic political.
> the evils of the free market (another "tory" invention!)...
wrong! the free market IS NOT a tory invention!
The modern tories are extreme advocates of the free market however.
> it all implies enough for me to confront you with it.
Less evidence than there is for calling Jeff Lightfingers Kennett
a thief, I would say! B^D
It all indicates you don't know shit about my posts.
And that your failure to provide ANY concrete
evidence to back up your claims demonstrates not
merely 'lack of resources' but 'lack of understanding'.
THE REASON YOU DO NOT USE MY ACTUAL
POSTS TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IS SIMPLE!
MY ACTUAL POSTS DO NOT SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT!
QED.
Lets just take my past 10 posts as a sample.
It shows the following, very specific topics
Just tell us which support your thesis:
Title Brief synopsis
Non violent erotica - tory censorship
Can Che actually debate defense of personal attack (SSChleppo)
Public apology to David Moss a public apology to David Moss.
Who is kathy here your ego
Aus.pol.FAQ a submission viz: "Pinko"
Re: Dr Seuss Is A Pinko Subversive! a lighthearted entertainment
Kathy wandering etc defence against your scurrilous ad hom.
Kennett's Son's Anus probed *
What is obscenity a critique of lying in advertising & tobacco
sponsorship.
tory talons in telstra a critique of tory privatization policy
lets stop there, as we HAVE not FOUND *ONE*
(IN A RICH, DIVERSE AND CREATIVE MIX OF POSTS)
which could possibly, remotely, be related to some obscure
element in your core contention.
apologise or fuck off.
> I do not have 24 hours a day, like you seem to have, to catalog and store my
> previous glorious battles on Usenet.
You, apparently, don't even have time to read those you slander.
> Neither do I keep the posts of those I
> dislike on file, for future mud-slinging.
you sling the mud without evidence? WELL DONE, Ms Torquemada!
> Sorry to disappoint you!
Nothing new there!
> It's not worth my while; I know I can never convince you of anything I say, nor
> can I
> be bothered trying.
Well, there appears to be the problem.
You want acceptance and even reward without effort!
Bloody typical of what is wrong with this country! B^p
> There are those who will observe and learn; there are
> those who will not.
Oh.. its all INNATE KNOWLEDGE on the part of the elect!
Hoochey Choochy juju! B^P
Get a clue about debate!
> Alas, you belong firmly in the latter category...
Obviously; when *YOU* define, without reference to facts...
who could possibly win.. ?
I can see why you are attracted to E. Europe..
you must fit right in! (With the Old Guard at least! )
> > And are you seriously suggesting that
> > I am responsible for the 'bleeding-heart' welfare state,
> > rather than say, Robert Menzies, who actually helped build
> > and sustain it?
>
> Not at all. Mr. "I Can't Read What You Wrote"! There is a difference between
> the intentions of the, generally well-meaning, architects of the original
> welfare state, and the type of welfare mentality some people exhibit today.
Which parts of "Welfare mentality" can you demonstrate in the
sample of posts quoted..?
Or a sample of your own choosing...
Or are YOU just a big mouthed little bitch with an axe to grind?
We have been down this path before, and you were unable to
produce then too!
(You work with Dilbert, don't you.. from the marketing Department!)
> Had you read what I said properly, you would have noticed I said: "Che
> Guava-type thinking".
Precisely!
WHY, you are being asked, did you choose to categorise
some abstract notion you carry in your head with reference to someone
whose work you admit to being manifestly unfamiliar with?
Apart from venomous antipathy, that is?
> I used you as an example;
But you then demonstrate you don't know me well enough to
do so!
You are incapable of EVEN BROADLY CATEGORIZING
the tenor of my posts!
It's incredible.. Its like dealing with the fucking NKVD
who know my 'guilt' without reference to my actions! B^p
> the type of stuff you keep repeating here is a good
> demonstration of what many Australian "battlers" are
> encouraged to think.
So as well as not knowing what I post, you think it is mainstream? B^p
Surely then, you could have found a more generic exemplar, a more
public and well known example, of the vague bunch of something or
others you are unhappy about.... B^p
> > BY WHAT RIGHT OR REASON DO YOU ASSIGN ALL
> > THE PAST HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENTS
> > LEADING TO AUSTRALIA'S CURRENT SITUATION
> > TO *ME*?
>
> Who said "all"? I said you were a good example of the problem,
which one do you see as 'a problem':
Non violent erotica - tory censorship
Can Che actually debate defense of personal attack (SSChleppo)
Public apology to David Moss a public apology to David Moss.
Who is kathy here your ego
Aus.pol.FAQ a submission viz: "Pinko"
Re: Dr Seuss Is A Pinko Subversive! a lighthearted entertainment
Kathy wandering etc defence against your scurrilous ad hom.
Kennett's Son's Anus probed *
What is obscenity a critique of lying in advertising & tobacco
sponsorship.
tory talons in telstra a critique of tory privatization policy
I need a better understanding of just WHICH TOPICS OF PUBLIC
DISCUSSION YOU PROPOSE TO PERMIT!
> not an architect of it - as much as your ego would love that!
Look love, you chose *me* to demonise irrationally..
We expect you to at least know why!
> > AND, IF I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
> > PROBLEMS, IS GROWTH DUE TO ME TOO? B^p
>
> No; it's despite the likes of you.
Classic tory: claim credit for growth which merely continues
at the trend rate when they gained office, and blame the
last two years of new aged care policy failures on the thirteen
years prior to the last half decade!
No concept of responsibility!
>
> > I claim royalties.
>
> What for?
> I thought material success was not important to you?
You just never have understood!
Of course material wellbeing is important!
Why else would there be concerns about iniquitous taxes and
unjust working conditions?
At least try and be consistent in your harangue!
> <snip>
>
> No, my friend; you ASSUMED you were the prime target. Sorry about that; your
> megalomania is getting out of hand!
Oh, come now! That is particularly WEAK!
You NAMED ME in your bleat.
Apart from Ziggy, I WAS THE ONLY ONE YOU NAMED.
Please pause and reflect; you are telling everyone the polar
examples of the aussie zeitgeist are, in your view, me and
Ziggy!? B^D Thanks hunny! ;-)
And now.. you call ME a meglomaniac!
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Baby, HAVE I GOT A SURPRISE FOR YOU!
WHAT IF I AM ZIGGY!!!!!!!! B^D
> > Or does your experience as a little tinpot bossy-boots over your
> > 'corporate empire' lead you to think that we will all automatically
> > regard your every utterance as divine wisdom?
>
> Not at all...however, your reaction to a passing reference to your NetName
> implies you are perhaps unfulfilled in some way or another?..
Oh, ok, it was just a stupid wind-up, by a complete lightweight.
We can all go home then.
> > Sorry shifty... I don't work for you, so I don't have to salve your ego. B^p
>
> No need; nothing wrong with it. I'm not sure I'd want you to work for me,
> anyhow; I'd have to watch how much of your (paid) worktime you spend on
> Usenet!
You believe the hours you spend working is a measure of your success? B^p
> <snip>
> > Well, you try to give it, but you don't like to take it when it's
> > given back. Brittle tory princess.
> >
> > I can see why you need to constantly brag about your
> > hero of the state status in E. Europe.
>
> I have done that? Funny that; I have not posted anything here on the subject
> until now; does that constitute "constant bragging"?
Hey.. I provided at least ONE, CURRENT, EXAMPLE supporting
my contention.. you have managed... NONE!
That's infinitely greater than your score.
> > And the way you constantly demand to see others business card..
> > to determine pecking order, merely shows you have never got beyond
> > middle level management.
>
> Your words, not mine...
> Your paranoia...
>
> > Like noveau riche, you constantly display, an ostentatious giveaway! B^D .
> > Real money wears jeans and sneakers, babe. ;-)
>
> What do you wear?
Jesus, 10 years on the Net, and this is my first virtual sex.
mostly cotton. I prefer it to silk...
except for my robe...
( loose silk is more comfortable to walk in with an erection ;-)
> Thongs
no, i prefer full briefs, they offer better support.
> and a tanktop?
well, I confess, ever since reading Aldis's post on
RE SELL THE DEFENCE FORCES, the idea has
been growing on me! B^D
> > Same with real achievement. B^)
>
> Like?
Raising children.
most complex project I've ever worked on.
Not he most expensive, but the most complex.
Oh I know you want to hear about some corporate dambuster yarn.
to hell with that.. go read my posts with Nev.
You know my contempt for your Japanese business card mentality.
('Once I know how important they are, I can judge how low to bow!' B^p)
> Being the most prolific aus.politics contributor?
compared to what? say, being a right prat, unable to sustain a point?
> > > > > This was one of your famous "full of shit - nothing to say -
> > > > > twist-the-facts-a-little"
> > > >
> > > > > posts...
> > > >
> > > > Oh, nothing like your pathetic tory bleating about the trials
> > > > of the Ayn Rand Fountainhead?
> > >
> > > What are you on about?
> > > I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I have never even
> > > mentioned Ayn Rand, or anything to do with that author.
> >
> > I didn't say you READ it.. (god knows your education is limited)
>
> I'm sure your friend Jim Colbert will be pleased about this observation of
> yours! (Read his and Dave Wareing's posts on the subject.)
>
> > I implied YOU LIVED IT! B^D
I always read Jim.
And often read Wearing, when i'm hungry.
(Wasn't that a happy accident... by placing my comment *here*
the Ayn Rand comment gets read again.. ;-)
> >
> > If you *had* read it, and then cast a knowing eye on your "Saga of the
> > Successful" you wouldn't be asking 'What are you on about?' B^p
> >
> > (Ask Wearing to explain.. he will JUMP at the chance.. ;-)
> >
> > > > Relieved only by gratuitous insults to the whole Australian
> > > > nation who failed to meet your pecuniary standards! B^D
> > >
> > > "Insults" as defined by Mr FruitLoop - the Consciousness Of The
> > > Community...
> >
> > " ..we are "The Whingeing Nation"....
> > ...governed by the politics of envy and hatred of success..."
> > .. record numbers of successful Australians leaving the country for overseas...
> > ...exporting their talents to other countries, who will appreciate them more...
>
> >
> > .. this country (in many ways still the LUCKY one) has some major
> > problems. Above anything, THE major problem is the cultivated dislike
> > the "battlers" feel for those more enterprising (read: more successful)
> > Australians. "
> >
> > As i said, not mine, but YOUR "gratuitous insults to the whole Australian
> > nation who failed to meet your pecuniary standards!" B^p
>
> Those are insults?
" ..we are "The Whingeing Nation".
.. Australians are still the "battlers' nation",
...governed by the politics of envy and hatred of success..."
> I think "observations" would be a more accurate
> description.
Oh, i'm sure you do.
I'm certain you see your sweeping and unsubstantiated general whinges
as constructive 'observations' and my quite specific and precisely
targeted posts (See the sample) as some vague and insubstantial
"conspiracy'. B^p tory wanker!
You just have to explain how the tory government got elected then! B^p
> They are not merely my conclusions, either.
What, are you uncertain of them already?
Looking for the numbers?
Howard does that.. he thinks leadership is reading the polls
and marching to the front! B^p
> If you don't believe it, read some other posts here;
What, Wearing repeating your sweeping and unsubstantiated
generalisations will make them more valid... PIGS ARSE! B^p
> or get away from the computer screen every
> once in a while and talk to people.
Do you have anything left other than pointless ad hom?
> > > > You simply lack self analysis.
> > >
> > > Again - funny coming from you; one who analyses everyone and everything,
> > > but only from his peculiar viewpoint.
> >
> > read your post.
> > Is the perspective from the people, or looking down on them?
>
> It is a perspective gained from talking to people; dealing with the public on
> an almost daily basis. Where does your perspective come from? Talking with
> the survivors of the 60s counterculture? Or is it from reading The Age?
You didn't answer my question.. (we all interact
I come here because the rest of my life is so intensely full of people
this is like virtual autism.... the world is so richly sensate,
that only by talking to you or staring at a wall, can i find peace ;-)
I asked WHERE IS YOUR PERSPECTIVE LOCATED, not who
you got it from.
I am trying to challenge your (in my view isolated) individualism.
> > You don't know where you came from, you don't know where you
> > are, but you are sure you got there by your own efforts alone! B^p
> >
> > > > Next, we ignore EVERY counter point raised, and establish
> > > > some self-serving criteria for the right to speak! B^D
> >
> > And on that, the essence of my criticism you have no answer:
> >
> > > >
> > > > I haven't seen anything quite so reactionary since the universal
> > > > franchise
> > > > was rejected during the Putney debates in 1647, when people you would
> > > > have felt right at home amongst argued ONLY MEN OF SUBSTANCE
> > > > (LANDHOLDERS) SHOULD HAVE THER VOTE!
> > > >
> > > > Like you they were anti-democratic, class riddled ideologues,
> > > > who could not stand the idea of EVERYONE being
> > > > ENTITLED to RIGHTS!
> >
> > > More disjointed woffle...
> >
> > Only because you are so totally self-possessed you cannot see the
> > degree by which you judge merit ONLY according to your own
> > definitions of success. You have achieved petit bourgeoisie success,
> > therefore that must be the measure of virtue! B^D
>
> You have arrived to some pretty far-fetched conclusions, seeing what you have
> based your reasoning on.
Well, at least I use YOUR WORK as MY INPUT..whereas
you use YOUR IMAGINATION as MY WORK! B^p
If you doubt the veracity of my claim.. simply reflect on the number
of occasions you probe about material indicators:
tax dollars paid
people employed
size of donations to charity....
ding!
> > It sounds almost plausible until you are challenged,
> > and then you fall apart and prove incapable of sustained
> > response.
>
> It is impossible to give a sustained response to posts as erratic and jumping
> to conclusions as yours tend to be.
So you can't handle complexity... as I said...
middle management talent, middle order intellect.
> > Next we will have some 'excuse'... B^p
> >
> > > BTW - I think you need a new keyboard. The old one tends to get stuck on
> > > caps...
> >
> > I was SHOUTING because I thought your unresponsiveness
> > might be DEAFNESS, but it is apparent you are just THICK! B^D
>
> Save your voice... I respond when response is warranted. Chances are I will
> soon give you the flick on this one, too! Just have a look how your "in-depth
> analysis" of a 38-line post turns, within a couple of responses, to a
> 671-line behemoth. No wonder hardly anyone bothers to waste their evening
> responding to your rantings.
Funny.. 'hardly anyone' quotes me and Ziggy as their zeitgeist icons.
Someone must be reading me, even if they cant manage a response
AT THE TIME! ;-)
> > > > So what are the tory conditions for FULL CITIZENSHIP privileges:
> > >
> > > I don't know what the "tory" ones are, but if you are talking about
> > > right-of-center politics, then ask the Department of Immigration - I'm
> > > sure they can advise you on current government's policies on the matter.
> >
> > I know you are done for when you describe the substantive point
> > as 'woffle' and compensate by responding volubly to the ironic. ;-)
>
> Talking about "tory conditions", I thought I'd point you in the right
> direction! I meant well; this is what I cop! Thanks, pal!
Hey, you threw the dead body down the well..
and then couldn't account for cause of death.
I was innocently passing by when I noticed you demonising me.
> > > > > Never mind; I am sure you have, in your lifetime, created plenty of
> > > jobs
> > > > > for your fellow Australians, you have contributed tens of thousands
> > > in
> > > > > taxes, to help create a better society, you have done your military
> > > duty
> > > > > (in Vietnam, was it?) and these days you donate all your income to
> > > noble
> > > > > causes...
> > > > > Is that so?
> > > >
> > > > Two of these more than Jesus, one less than Hitler.
> > > >
> > > > But you have no right to ask. It demonstrates the shallow price-tag
> > > > you place on ideas.
> > >
> > > I have no right to ask,
> >
> > that's right you have no right to define WHAT the requirements for
> > holding forth with an opinion are. You have no right to make
> > citizenship contingent on success.
>
> And, pray tell: What does your raving about "right to citizenship" and
> "requirements to hold an opinion" have to do with my original post? Did I
> imply (like I recall your friend Mosley has done) that the likes of you
> should be silenced? Did I say you should be made to emigrate to North Korea?
"you have no right to define WHAT the requirements for
holding forth with an opinion are." as you do with your checklist
of chequebook authenticity:
tax dollars paid
people employed
military service..
size of donations to charity....
ding!
> > Even so, I have riddled you an answer, if you have the wit for it.
>
> I speak straight; you talk in riddles.
> Maybe that's the problem with you...it's all a riddle with no answer to you!
> What is the sound of Che's tongue wagging?
tax dollars paid
people employed
military service..
size of donations to charity....
Two of these I do more than Jesus, (perhaps 3.)
One I do less than Hitler.
My point is: 'So what are you measuring????'
> >
> > > and yet YOU have the right to accuse me of
> > > shallowness and greed; without even knowing me!
> >
> > Hell, you STARTED by offhandedly blaming the entire
> > "Australian dilemma" ON ME, single-handedly!
>
> Paranoid, are we?
> Read above; I used you as an _example_ (bad one, I might add!)
ON WHAT FUCKING EVIDENCE, HEY???
> You have the files with all your posts. I guess it'd be a breeze to find the
> answer to your own question.
I looked, you were wrong.
Either through ignorance or deliberate malice.
> >
> > Surely I have the right to point out that you CONFESS
> > material success beyond most peoples dreams,
>
> It's not a dream. Almost anyone can do it. Rather than playing the pokies and
> dreaming about hitting it rich - and than blaming the better off, if it does
> not happen. What do you confess to?
No man.
> <snip>
>
> If I had chosen to stay in my old job, and complained now
> here on Usenet how the boss is a prick because s/he won't
> give me a pay rise, and how I might not have the job next week,
> because I need to put in more effort if I want to keep it, you would be the
> first one to offer support.
Bullshit. You really are twanging it!
I don't 'commiserate' with people in aus.pol!
I shred hubris like you have just exhibited.
One, that I can recall in oh, at least 12 months!
The bloke who was trying to develop software, to
start his own business, but had to run about doing
bullshit job application busywork!
HE was the only one you will find in a year!
GO ON.. THAT'S MY CONCRETE CHALLENGE!
FIND ANOTHER POST WHERE I DO AS YOU CLAIM!
More Pravda posturing?
> You'd commiserate with yet another poor, exploited battler.
> Because I stand on the other side of the fence,
from where i stand, you are dancing along it... howling at the
moon and dribbling.
> those very
> "battlers" (and some chardonnay academic socialists) believe I am devil
> incarnate, and "Australia's collective I.Q. will rise after she leaves" - as
> someone put it in another post. I do not wonder about that; not at all. But
> it does worry me.
Perhaps the consensus view is that *you* are the evil zeitgeist? B^D
Wow, given that you started this thread with just such gratuitous
demonization I can only think of two comments:
You really are a successful communicator... B^p
and
Karma! B^D
(My old mum would say.. you reap what you sow...
you seem to be reaping personal vitriol ;-)
> > > Why does your hypocricy not surprise me?
> >
> > Because it is a fabrication.
>
> Yeah; right!
>
> > > Is it because it's to be expected from the likes of yourself?
> >
> > Look, you BEGAN by pre-judging me guilty, your
> > 'expectations' needed no substance then, nor will they now.
lets just give that a reprise.
> > Lets have a little irrelevant self-congratulation break:
> Irrelevant? It was a belated reply to your charge against me in your original
> reply to my post - to which I initially could not be bothered replying.
Hey, YOU tipped a bucket
YOU claim megalomania when a defence is mounted at the bucket...
and then this:
(The amazing thing is, THIS is the sort of self congratulatory boosterism
you seem to be inviting from others, and it would be so easy to provide
you by listing my virtues.. but it is so appallingly banal and superficial!
Hence my comments re the nouveau riche, and your nervous bragging)
> > > I am GREEDY, because I, instead of sitting on my arse, wallowing in
> > > misery, hating anyone who's better off than me, chose to make some
> > > effort and get ahead - creating jobs for others in the process. I am
> > > GREEDY, because I wish to keep more of what I earn for my 60+hour
> > > average working weeks, so I can choose what to do with those funds,
> > > rather than handing them over to bureaucrats to "redistribute", wasting
> > > over a third in the process!
> >
> > No, you are greedy for taking all the credit, giving everyone else
> > all the blame, and fucking off, with malice. ok? ;-)
> >
> > (I didn't say you were without redeeming merit, I am sure you are
> > an efficient little technocrat.. it's when you claim godhood on the basis
> > of it that the peasants start to feel squeamish)
>
> The peasants start feeling squeamish because there is someone here who has
> come from their ranks, and has gotten ahead.
Where do you get this stuff? This poor-little-rich-girl-bullshit?
It just registers as hysterical attention seeking to me! B^p
Eddie Mcguire is a popular and successful man, John Farhnam is well
loved AND rich. People hate the Goanna because he is a real prick.
Get some discernment, and drop the class shit!
> That is not supposed to happen, is it?
> Who would the likes of you defend if everyone were happy?
Sounds like, in your world, there would still be.. how did you put it..
"the likes of me"! B^p I guess I would defend 'them'
It sounds like they are being attacked. B^p
> > > You, on the other hand, having failed in a business venture yourself (as
> > > you told me),
> >
> > B^D Was that the "Clay referral Clinic" Nth Brighton and "Solid Mud"
> > Brunswick St Fitzroy; pottery and lifestyle design to the fashion challenged
> > back in the Hippie era!? Where we gave ceramic sculptures away to
> > cute kids and beautiful women!?
> > And smoked the profits or blew them on board meetings in Bali!? B^D
>
> You did not mention all the details; but I'm sure you could find the
> reference.
>
> > Jesus, you *are* desperate for ammo! I have had two careers and
> > a family since then! ;-)
>
> And what were those careers? -
The one I left was 20 years in Corporate DP
from SYSPROG to Software Consultant, to Project Manager
to Department Manager.
Large corporate environment, 19 technical staff reporting to me,
plus subbies for the cable pulling.
I left it for my current occupation.
I refer to it as semi-retired. ;-)
I won't ever work 'for' someone else again.
But I frequently work 'on their behalf'.
> No underhanded intention here; I'm plain curious.
Sure, but like most people on the NG you are here to
project.
I am here to diversify.
> Or would that be giving too much away off the e-mythical Che Guava
> status?
You are all mysteries to me.
I must just be a more interesting mystery. ;-)
> Would it, perchance, impair your ability to fight future battles?
I am sure someone will fling it in my face one day.
I have been called a hypocrite by people like SSchleppo
who claim you can't have shares and condemn the 'greedy' rich,
or have rural property and support Native Title.
I keep explaining.. it's the 'greed' not the 'rich'
which I admonish.. but it is hard to get them to
understand.
> > Ah, you wound me with fond memories.. life was so rich then! B^D
> > The beautiful follies of youth.
>
> So rich?
youth is rich,
It would be hard to find a genuinely new experience now.
we just repeat favourite ones. ;-)
> The Vietnam war?
every life has it's profound struggle.
> The Cold War?
and its nightmare fears
> The threat of a nuclear holocaust?
and it's insanities.
> How was life better then than it is now?
That's not what i said.
It is never better than now.
But It was 'so rich'
Love and skydiving.
The beach at El Nido.
Afternoons drinking bourbon and coke.
The Art House
Planting the chesnuts and cashews along the Delatite at the farm.
don't get me started... :-)
> Or was it just all that acid, man?
I was always cautious about drugs.
I have only grown more so.
LSD is a powerful hallucinogenic, and, like jumping from aeroplanes,
it is not a risk you should keep taking. The odds work against you.
I have joked with friends that the time to experiment with drugs is
after 90. The burnout will be hardly noticeable and the severe
downside risks less consequential.
> ...cut irrelevant woffle...
> >
> > > Like it or not, we are not living in a Buddhist monastery.
> >
> > Oh, believe me.. I like it. I can handle the cold showers and
> > Zen gardens, but the chanting gives me headaches..
>
> A pill of Ecstasy helps with that! {;-)
I really am not into drugs.
Ever since learning that the Hashishim were the derivation,
of 'assassin', all the dewy eyed drug romance disappeared. ;-)
Only one of my peak epiphanies was in any way related to
psychedelics, and that was only because I took it with my lover.
It's always reality, and not the drug, which provides the wonder.
> > and NO
> > ONE hits me with a bamboo pole! B^)
> >
> > > Your moral "superiority" is illusory -
> >
> > Sure, the illusion is yours.. I don't claim moral superiority..
> > I admonish the rich because it's a sacred duty, not because I
> > am different.
>
> Sacred duty according to whom?
There is only One 'Whom' in this context.. ;-)
The same cautions are found in *every* sacred tradition,
as far as I can see.
Buddha preaches the middle path, neither asceticism nor hedonism.
Greed is a lack ot detachment.
In the Christian tradition the *Love* of money is the root of all evil.
It doesnt get much clearer than that....
(NB... not 'money'...money is cool. it is *idolatorous lust* or 'worship' of it
which is not cool.
To bring that back into the real world... It is placing monetary value
above human value which is degrading, corrupt, and TO BE ADMONISHED.
Now, for the big prize, do you thing we have instances
of the idolatrous lust for money in our society? ;-)
> > > as it is judged according to criteria you yourself have devised.
> >
> > No, its revealed. You just need to read, investigate for yourself
> > and be willing to self-criticise. The precepts for right living have
> > always been known.
>
> There are many ways one can define "right living". Your criteria are not
> necessarily those of everyone else.
That's why I said you need to read and investigate for yourself.
I am not being prescriptive about morality or spirituality.
My 'brand' is not one of those that claims *exclusive truth*.
But you asked, so I gave you my honest view.
> > > Your reluctance to talk about your real world achievents speaks volumes
> > > - and it does nothing for your credibility.
> >
> > JESUS, YOU HAVE A HIDE! You have just dredged up an
> > out-of context anecdote from my past, shared originally with you
> > in framework of later professional and career success, and flung
> > it back at my with the bogus imputation that I am a material failure! B^D
>
> Welcome to a treatment using your own medicine!
Was it really!? I don't solicit personal details
("I'm just curious") and then use them against people!
To me, it's a battle of *ideas*, not circumstances.
> > You really are a hypocritical little tory bitch! B^p
> > I withdraw my fond farewell, and good wishes..
>
> You did not really mean those, anyway!
Of course I did.
And now I am recovered from anger, I do again. :-)
> > I hope you
> > get gunned down in a shopping mall by a coke crazed five
> > year old from a wealthy hollywood family, just as you are
> > about to seal the deal of a lifetime! B^D
>
> Better chance of that happening in Melbourne!
Now i am feeling less angry and aggrieved about your nasty
character assassination I just hope you get a bad migraine in a
shopping mall and a five year old spills coke on your
dress, but you still get to seal the deal of a lifetime. ;-)
> <snip>
>
> > And I tend not to blame the peasants for lack of leadership quite
> > as readily as you do. (It's marks you as one only relatively recently
> > used to power and influence.. in a small circle.)
>
> No; you blame those who wish to elevate themselves above the peasant status.
Never.
I do have harsh standards for those who make it, though.
No more than I ask of myself, however.
> Those who take the risks, create jobs and wealth and have
> the hide to want to keep some of it.
Ah, this is just another tedious tax whinge.
I have ALWAYS had enough.
When I ate 'survival pancakes' (flour and water ONLY!) hiking...
and when my eldest daughter took her first steps, in our hotel suite
in Hong Kong.
I have ALWAYS had enough.
> > > > But at least you are honest in your rejection of democracy,
> > > > and support for a dollar meritocracy.
> > >
> > > As usual, you're full of it!
> >
> > But that is ABSOLUTELY the line you were developing.
> >
> > YOU are successful.
>
> So can be most others.
>
> > YOU are being 'held back' by the ignorant masses.
>
> Held back? Not quite. Subject to dislike, perhaps,
well, get over it and move on.....
YOU STARTED BY TELLING US IT WAS THE
NATIONS *BIGGEST* PROBLEM!
"Above anything, THE major problem is the cultivated dislike
the "battlers" feel for those more enterprising"
Now it turns out to be just a pebble in your shoe!
I told you admonishing the rich was a spiritual duty.
You have been admonished and are demonstrably the
better for it! B^D
Now get along with you...
go and do something successful, or something,
and leave me to my admonishing.
There are many more intractable problems than you.
You will receive my bill in the mail.
Please pay promptly! ;-)
> for not wallowing in misery, like them.
> Being exposed to the "you're too well off, we want more of
> your money" thinking. That's not being held back.
Good grief.. the battlers don't need *my* admonishment, that's
what we have a heartless tory government for.
If people are too stupid or lazy to try, their reality will
be it's own 'reward' ;-)
I always thought leadership was by example.
I always expected the best of my staff, I was rarely
disappointed.
> > THEY are jealous.
>
> Indeed. When they should be thinking "How do I get ahead, too?"
>
> > give me a break! I suspect you should spend some time with an
> > analyst! B^p
>
> Well, it would not be you!
I HAVE TURNED YOUR *MAJOR PROBLEM* INTO
A MERE 'IRRITATING NUISANCE'. B^)
C'MON SHIFTY... OWN UP!
You really are an ungrateful wretch! B^D
(Jealous, I suspect of my success, and holding me back from
even greater accomplishment by your 'dislike'. B^D )
> > > I support betterment thru one's own endeavors - a concept totally
> > > foreign to you and others like you.
> >
> > Yes, we all support that, dummy.. that's why we have a mixed economy.
>
> Yes; we just differ in our individual definitions of "mixed economy".
Well, it's neither Marx nor John Paul Getty, neither fish nor fowl.
Its a hybrid in which anyone can have a go and achieve success,
but everyone has a collective responsibility.
The rest is just 'implementation details' but If I start to deal with
these details, you WILL FAIL UTTERLY TO ENGAGE IN
SPECIFIC DEBATE, IN THOSE POSTS, and later merely cry
'conspiracy'. B^p
> > Where you go further is standing on your small mountain bemoaning
> > the tininess of the ants you see below.. it's all a bit sick making.
>
> Take a Panadol!
That will make me less queasy, but will not make you less sickening.
> > > Your woffle about "rights" "dollar meritocracy" etc. is merely a
> > > smokescreen for your inability to answer a question that hits too close
> > > to home!
> >
> > Talking about a dollar meritocracy is a smokescreen
> > for refusing to play "how big is your wallet"?
>
> Refusing to substantiate your charges of "what have you done for your
> country?".
Sorry...?
"*your* inability to answer a question that hits too close to home!"
"*your* charges of "what have you done for your country?".
*Who* is making charges.. and *who* is refusing to answer them?
You seem to be saying, *me*, to both!? B^p
> > I wish you could hear yourself,
>
> I can. Deafness is not one of my shortcomings.
Then it must be a failure of comprehension.
> > Besides, if you have the wit for riddles I have already more
> > than half answered your question...
> > ...as I blew it out of the water.... B^D
> >
> > For such a business giant you are not very agile. ;-)
>
> I'll cope!
Sounds a bit on the south side of excellence to me. ;-)
You took my 671 line precis and expanded it to 799 lines
WITHOUT ADDING ANY NEW POINTS OF SUBSTANCE! B^p
It really is bad form for the prosecution to be complaining
about the thoroughness of the defence.. ;-)
> I only have three weeks left!
The Mal Colston excuse now?
> ...cut some...it's way too long anyway...
ok.
<snip>
> > (Pure Ayn Rand, READ Fountainhead, *you* will love it!
>
> I might just do it; but it'll have to wait a little.
>
> > Wearing
> > would lend you his copy, but the pages are probably stuck together! B^)
> >
> > Young Australians have ALWAYS made their way into the wider world!
>
> Yeah; as backpackers! A little different than the current situation.
It has LONG been the case that Australian artists, world class scientists,
inventors and business people have had to leave our tiny market and
go overseas. The term 'brain drain' has been around at least as long
as I have.
The loss of the Telecom Research Centre in Clayton is a good indicator
of how privatization accelerates this process. As ownership moves
increasingly to foreign hands the felt need for local research declines.
As with our now foreign owned Powercos, they cease to be training
grounds for technicians, and the local regions become starved of
employment and training opportunities. The wealth is exported as dividends.
> > Your bitchy "exodus" of the greedy disgruntled is something else.
>
> Again you're off about the "greedy"!
Those that have a lot but grizzle about having more.
And lecture ALL those who have less on 'be like me' B^p
> Waste of time talking to you, it is not?
If you won't listen as well, yes.
> ..cut a little...
> ...cut the rest...
>
> Thank you for your contribution!
> I don't think I ever want to go through anything this long on Usenet again!
I'll make the next one wider instead.
Better yet, make accusations AFTER evidence and you
won't be forced into long, futile, self justification.
> I do hope you have a life besides your computer...
No, I actually prefer to range further away from it than that.
> Kath
Bon Voyage, my little Princess.
Don't forget to pack that copy of Fountainhead for the plane! ;-)
(It can double as a mirror for putting on your lippy ;-)
Che Guava
Gregory Lee Shearman wrote:
> In article <8aal4t$753$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> Garth Foster <gpfo...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> |> Who gives a shit anyway? If they are sloughing off some staff,
> |> doesn't that mean they are becoming more efficient? I thought that
> |> was the whole idea.
>
> Efficient? Why is my phone connection still copper? It should have
> been photo-optic cable by now.... 56k link indeed...
>
> We'll NEVER see photo-optic connections now that Telstra has to be
> "efficient"..
>
> Too bad efficiency doesn't relate to the speed of my connection to the
> internet...
Absolutely correct.
"Commercial choice" means duplicated pay-tv networks
no one but the proponents of the "couch potato" nation want,
and no cheap high-speed data which the clever country
is crying out for.
Infrastructure is too important to be left to the dumb market forces.
> |> If you think businesses ought to retain unnecessary staff, then you
> |> presumably endorse limitless enlargement of the Public Service, with
> |> the extra staff being paid simply to dig holes and fill them in.
>
> Yep... dig holes for photo-optic cables... and fill them in...
>
> Now we'll be still using copper for the next 100 years.
And the advantages of a cheap, ubiquitous network are
unlikely to extend beyond the major urban trunks.
Without cross subsidisation extension into the hinterland
becomes uneconomic... and the true value of universal
email cannot be realised unless EVERYONE IS ON!
Siegen
:> In article <38C9A56D...@senet.com.au>,
:> John Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote:
:>
:> > Hey is this the same Ziggy that used to have
:> > a top position at Optus?
:> Indeed it is!
:> And he's not a fuckwit (as some have implied) either!
That was I and I did NOT "imply" it, I stated it unequivocably.
:> As I said to you elsewhere - your using the Optus network only shows why
:> Telstra needs to get its act together...
No, it just shows that, wherever Ziggy has been, he leaves shit
behind.
:> Kath
kathy...@my-deja.com
fin...@end.of.message wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Mar 2000 12:23:49 GMT kathy...@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> :> In article <38C9A56D...@senet.com.au>,
> :> John Leister <joh...@senet.com.au> wrote:
> :>
> :> > Hey is this the same Ziggy that used to have
> :> > a top position at Optus?
>
> :> Indeed it is!
>
> :> And he's not a fuckwit (as some have implied) either!
> That was I and I did NOT "imply" it, I stated it unequivocably.
And of course, you're a well- known capacity when it comes to these
assesments...
> :> As I said to you elsewhere - your using the Optus network only
shows why
> :> Telstra needs to get its act together...
> No, it just shows that, wherever Ziggy has been, he leaves shit
> behind.
>
Great logic!
That must be why Optus has been performing so well lately, huh?
Siegen
[snip]
Kathy:
:> > :> And he's not a fuckwit (as some have implied) either!
Siegen:
:> > That was I and I did NOT "imply" it, I stated it unequivocably.
Kathy:
:> And of course, you're a well- known capacity when it comes to these
:> assesments...
Well, I am not well-known.
Kathy:
:> > :> As I said to you elsewhere - your using the Optus network only
:> > :> shows why Telstra needs to get its act together...
Siegen:
:> > No, it just shows that, wherever Ziggy has been, he leaves shit
:> > behind.
Kathy:
:> Great logic!
:> That must be why Optus has been performing so well lately, huh?
This "performance" is not as measured by the market -- i.e. customers
and potential customers.
One month to reply to an email enquiry about the Optus internet
connection.
Long waiting periods on the phone when seeking either to become a
customer or to report yet another problem in their, so-called,
"service".
Cheers,
Siegen
:> In article <38cbff2b...@news.pacific.net.au>,
:> fin...@end.of.message wrote:
:> > On Fri, 10 Mar 2000 01:14:17 GMT kathy...@my-deja.com wrote:
:> > Siegen:
:> > :> > We don't consider you one either.
:> >
Kathy:
:> > :> Thank you for your compliment!
Siegen:
:> > If you choose to receive that as a compliment you must be quite
:> > desperate for compliments!
:> Do you know what "sarcastic" means?
Yes. I do know what it means. Why do you ask? Do you need it exlained
to you?
:> Do consult your dictionary (provided
:> you actually own one!)
Why? Which word do you want me to look up for you?
Kathy:
:> > :> I obviously did not notice you knew me so well...
Siegen:
:> > You were drunk at the time ------ out celebrating your sheer
:> > wonderfulness and the good fortune bestowed upon Australia by your
:> > mere existance.
:> Sorry, pal - I don't drink.
That's a fact. You GULPED!!
:> You sure it was not you who was a little out of it (and still is...)?
I wished I was, afterwards.
Kathy:
:> > :> And, BTW - which organization do you speak for? Or is it just the
:> > :> assumed "we" - speaking for the downtrodden masses?
Siegen:
:> > Organisation?? I'm talking people not businesses.
Kathy:
:> And, do explain: what is the difference?
This is definately a bad sign.
:> I always thought businesses _were_ people...I stand corrected, huh?
Yes. Businesses are not people. They are inanimate representations of
an economic endeavour operated by people.
[snip]
Kathy:
:> > :> Is that so? I thought I merely made a comment about the
:> > :> Australians' inherent hatred of success...
Siegen:
:> > Such as Mr. Bond's?
:> Why call names?
I did not "call names". I mentioned a name.
:> What are you trying to say?
"Trying" makes it sound like I was unsuccessful. I wasn't. I succeeded
in saying what I wanted to say. You had trouble understanding it.
:> There is only one Bond; however, Australians' hatred of success goes
:> back much further than that.
"Success". You call it "success" to, in effect, earn one million
dollars per day from an activity which landed the man in goal?
You show no sympathy for the many "Battlers" who were swindled.
:> Or are you so young your memory remembers back 10 years?
"Memories" are what remembering brings back to the conscious mind.
Memories do not remember.
[snip]
Kathy:
:> > :> the idea of "heros of socialist labor" and public
:> > :> holidays and statues in their honor is no longer in fashion.
Siegen:
:> > No longer in fashion with whom?
Kathy:
:> With everyone except for the fossilized Left.
What is a "fossilized left"?
Is this some pseudo-intellectual derision of anyone who believes that
the existance of different Classes within society should be a passive
thing and that the better-off Classes should use their increased
"power" to act to reduce the economic distinctions between the Classes
instead of riding rough-shod over those who are less well-off?
Kathy:
:> Are you part of it?
Could be. What are you going to do about it?
Kathy:
:> > :> Perhaps, instead of planning more public holidays, people like
:> > :> yourself could also create jobs through their own initiative.
Siegen:
:> > Should I learn job creation skills from Ziggy perhaps?
Kathy:
:> Perhaps you should. If you ever took over a former monopoly business,
:> you'd do the same he does.
Why?
:> For your information - most of those retrenched at Telstra found jobs
:> elsewhere in the fast growing telecommunications sector.
So, Telstra is, in effect, supplying experienced staff to its
competitors whilst it will try to struggle on with it's reduced staff
levels and young, inexperienced new staff.
Sounds like suicide to me.
I told you Ziggy seems like a fuckwit.
:> They just have to work a little harder now than they used to.
But the Management levels don't. It all sounds fair-dinkum to me.
[snip]
Siegen:
:> > It doesn't sound like you can run a business here anyway seeings
:> > that's the reason YOU gave for leaving.
Kathy:
:> Well, I have run a business - one I started, too.
But you are fleeing Australia because "whinging battlers" have driven
you out. Doesn't sound very successful to me.
:> How about you?
I'm still here. I don't seem to be having any problems with "whinging
battlers". I guess some people have what it takes and others don't.
Kathy:
:> > :> You see, these days one need not actually BE in Australia - and one
:> > :> can still post to Usenet...
Siegen:
:> > You don't say! Now, thanks to Kath's enormous intellect, we all know
:> > why there are so many posts in various newsgroups made from outside
:> > Australia.
Kathy:
:> Glad to have been of help. Even the real thick ones can be educated - up
:> to a point!
Well, we got you to the point of realising that usenet is a global
entity, not just a local, australian one and now you understand why
non australians can also post to an australia-oriented news group.
[snip]
Kathy:
:> > :> The best proof of the Whingeing Nation.
Siegen:
:> > But, Kath, it is YOU who is whinging, picking up your bat and going
:> > elsewhere. Not us.
Kathy:
:> I am going away to pursue a business opportunity.
Someone who is "going away to pursue a business opportunity" would NOT
be claiming she is being driven out of Australia by "whinging
Battlers". She would say she is leaving Australia to pursue yet
another business opportunity.
Kathy:
:> You, on the other hand, are staying behind, whinging about how companies
:> are run.
Yep. We're going to stick around and stick-up for our fellow aussies.
:> What experience do you have in running a company?
:> Perhaps the Telstra board should ask you how to run their company?
Perhaps the Government should, seeings it owns a majority share.
For example, if I had a business which is making $2.1 BILLION profit
per year I WOULD NOT sell it! I'd keep it and reap the rewards!
You see. I'm already smarter than these so-called "experts" that you
align yourself with.
Kathy:
:> > :> Nice speaking to you, Siegen! No doubt, we'll meet again!
Siegen:
:> > At your next self-worshipping booze-up I hope! --- but don't go so far
:> > as to actually bark like a doggie next time please!
Kathy:
:> If you talk shit, I reply in kind!
You DID in kind!
Cheers!